Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Southampton, Itchen, in the room of the right hon. Horace Maybray King (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3

DIRECTORY ENTRIES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 35, leave out from "behalf" to "before" in line 37, and insert:
an order complying with this section or a note complying with this section of his agreement to the charge and, in the case of a note of agreement to the charge.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 41, leave out from second "of" to "be" in line 42, and insert:
an order or note of agreement to the charge complying with this section,
No. 3, in page 3, line 3, after "that" insert
the entry to which the charge relates was ordered in accordance with this section or
and No. 4, in page 3, line 5, at beginning insert:
For the purposes of subsection (1) above, an order for an entry in a directory must be made by means of an order form or other stationery belonging to the person to whom, or to whose trade or business, the entry is to relate and bearing, in print, the name and address (or one or more of the addresses) of that person; and
deal basically with the same point and make little sense if considered in isolation. It might be for the convenience of the House if we considered them together.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that it will be for the convenience of the House if we do that.

Mr. Goodhart: Many hon. Members are now aware of the extent of the bogus directory racket in this country. It has been estimated that a sum of £1½, million is milked each year from unsuspecting firms in all parts of the country by the publishers of bogus trade directories. During the past year attempts have been


made to reach every firm in the country by one or other of the bogus directory operators.
In the five months that have elapsed since I first introduced the Bill hardly a day has gone by, even during the postal strike, without some complaint about this abuse being brought directly to my notice. Clause 3 sets out to curb this practice by requiring publishers to send a substantial number of details about the directory they intend to print to any person whose name is to appear in that directory. The person must sign an order form before he can be asked to pay anything. Many experts have studied this Clause and agree that it should effectively end the racket.
It has been argued that, as it stands, it would impose an unnecessary complication on a number of perfectly normal and wholly uncontentious business transactions and that when an entry or order was made in good faith by an individual or firm it could not readily be accepted unless all the information set out in Clause 3 had been sent to the individual concerned and returned to the firm. In another place there was much discussion as to whether reputable firms could be helped without providing a loophole for the unscrupulous. It was argued that when people or companies used their own printed notepaper or printed order form to ask for an entry they plainly knew what they were doing. Official help with the drafting was sought and generously given, and the Amendments should meet the problem without weakening the original effect and intention of Clause 3.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I should merely like to support my hon. Friend in commending the Amendments to the House. We should be as careful as possible in our legislation not to impose onerous and unnecessary burdens upon people who are in no sense causing offence or doing anything wrong. There could be a case where somebody wrote of his own accord to a directory firm and asked to have his name or the name of his business included in the directory, and where, if that perfectly genuine order were simply accepted by the directory company, that company might well find that it had no right to exact payment, unless this group of Amendments is made. That clearly is a situation that the House would not like to see.
I should like to draw attention to one detail. The Amendment allows the directory companies to require and pursue payment for orders if the orders have been received upon writing paper with the printed address of the person ordering. It perhaps is a curious point, but if the writing paper has the address typed or handwritten rather than printed those conditions are not met, and the directory company would have to have the order confirmed. However, the problems of drafting are such that it is hard to overcome this little difficulty. The vast majority of such orders are from traders who operate with printed writing paper. But it shows the extraordinary difficulty of trying to legislate both to stop the abuse which I am sure the whole House wishes to stop and to be fair to legitimate transactions, that we have to split hairs to this extent to find an acceptable form of words.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Clause as amended appears to meet the needs of the case and at the same time is satisfactory to all those who operate responsible and respectable directory businesses. Like him, I believe that it will lead to an end of the practice of bogus directory entries and harassment for payment for entries in those directories. Since he introduced his Bill a number of hon. Members have written to me with letters from constituents complaining about this practice. I have been very pleased to be able to reply that if my hon. Friend's Bill reaches the Statute Book I believe that the nuisance will be brought to an end. Therefore, perhaps I may end on a personal note by saying that it will save me, for one, a certain amount of work, if the Clause is amended. That is of benefit to me, but it will be of very much greater benefit to those who have been troubled by this nuisance in the past.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am aware that the House wishes to get on to the next business, and I do not wish to delay hon. Members, but perhaps I may intervene briefly, because I have a constituency interest in the matter. I have had correspondence with a constituent who is particularly concerned about it, and I had hoped to catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Minister before he sat down. He spoke of harassment of people to secure payment. I


have in my hand an example of the sort of deception which has caused considerable concern to many hon. Members. It purports to be an invoice statement from a firm, and it says:
1971. To bold type entry classified as Class Restaurants—£15.50p. Discount terms, 5 per cent. within 10 days—£14.72p.
Then in minute type at the bottom it says:
This is a pro-forma effected by payment.
This is a deception; no order has been placed. But there must be very few businesses which are so incompetent that they will pay bills for goods or services that they have not ordered and have not received.
11.15 a.m.
Therefore, I was particularly disturbed by what my hon. Friend said about harassment for payment, because there is a distinct difference between the case of someone who puts in an order form which may be dressed up to look like an invoice and the case of someone who, having done that, proceeds to try to dun someone for payment without having received a written order from them. We should not molly-coddle businesses to the point where people who have received an invoice for goods they have not ordered and received are expected to be protected by law. What is the difference between an entry in a register and sending an invoice for a ton of coal when someone has not delivered the goods?

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I know of a case in my constituency of a junior secretary who had been with a firm for only a week or so and was harassed into making payment on just such a proforma under the natural illusion that it was an invoice and was due for payment from the firm. My hon. Friend should be very careful about this matter, because it is a deception and it should be stopped.

Mr. Mitchell: That is the point I was trying to elucidate, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Whilst I take the view that we should not molly-coddle businesses, if there is harassment to secure payment in the way my hon. Friend has described, the situation is different. and in that case the House

should give full blessing to the Amendment as well as to the Bill in its amended form.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell.) I think that the two positions he took are entirely met by the Clause as amended. The unwise business which does not look after its own interests may well simply be paying, when it receives a request for payment, for something it has not ordered, and it is in no sense protected against its own foolishness if it makes that mistake. The offence will arise where, when no order has been placed, the directory firm harasses the individual or company for payment. The penalties mentioned in the Clause are quite severe for any attempt to obtain payment, let alone to harass for payment for an order which has not been placed—an unsolicited order. Therefore, I think that I am right in saying that my hon. Friend's worries are entirely met. I hope that it will become generally known that it is an offence to demand or press for payment for any order for an entry in a directory which has not been placed, just as it is to demand payment for goods which have not been supplied, or anything of that sort.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend says that he hopes that this will become generally known. May I ask him to do his best to make sure that it is generally known, because the practice in question is very widespread? I have several examples from Staffordshire in my files, and we have heard of examples from two other parts of the country, so it must be a very widespread practice. I hope that my hon. Friend will do all he can to draw attention to the penalties.

Mr. Ridley: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but I have no control of the means of mass communication, and it would be wrong for me to have any. I have consistently given this view and will continue to do so on all possible occasions. I feel sure that those responsible for the mass communication media would be better able to perform the task than the Government would, and we have no means by which we could circu-


larise—again it would be wrong for us to have them—all businessess, let alone all individuals, about the state of the law. I think that it is a reasonable presumption that it is up to business and individuals to acquaint themselves of changes in the law made by Parliament. I am sure that all hon. Members will add to that by giving their constituents the benefit of their knowledge of the provisions of this Clause.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I, too, have no objection to these Amendments. The purpose of Clause 3 is to put an end to the practice by which bogus directory firms send out the minimum of details, deliberately concealing the true charge and the circulation, thereby both milking the public and enriching themselves. The Amendments in no way weaken the Clause. I always look to see from whence an Amendment comes, and when it comes from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), I am always inclined to look at it with favour.
The Amendments also have the support of the Advertising Association, and Mr. Alan Hickman, to whom I pay tribute, has done a great deal to try to stamp out the bogus directory racket. He feels that the Amendments will in no way weaken the Bill. I have had long discussions with him and he has convinced me also that that is the effect.
I have no doubt that many of these firms will try to go so far as possibly to forge the letterheads of some of the companies they want to milk, just as many of them have gone to the extent in the past of transferring to order forms signatures of firms which were merely attached to notifications that they did not want any more orders. But that is covered by the present law, and if such people are caught, as I hope they will be, they will suffer the full rigours of the criminal code. I do not think that we can legislate for every possible eventuality, because there are always criminals and always people who will try to find a way around the law.
In the circumstances, I am happy to welcome the Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4

UNSOLICITED PUBLICATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 3, line 31, after "illustrates" insert "human".

Mr. Goodhart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 35, at end insert:
(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not, in England and Wales, be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Goodhart: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
When Clause 4 was added to the Bill on Report in this House, every hon. Member who spoke agreed that it was desirable to put a stop to the practice of sending out circulars advertising books illustrating sexual techniques. But they all also acknowledged that the Clause as it stood would have some curious side effects. Clause 4 as passed by this House would have made almost any publisher in the land liable to prosecution for sending out in the normal way to members of the public—not at random to people who have not necessarily asked for the publisher's list—the normal spring or autumn roster of books intended to be published, since almost every publisher has on his list some book which, in the words of the Clause,
… describes or illustrates sexual techniques.
Thus, if the Clause went through un-amended, it would, as my hon. Friend pointed out on Report, make it illegal, for example, for any publisher of an encylopedia to send out a circular or letter advertising any work which described, say, the sexual life of a newt. That is not what the proposer of this worth-while Clause had in mind.
It was, therefore, hoped on Report that the other place would make substantial Amendments to Clause 4 so that it would make sense. That has been done in two ways, reflected in the two Amendments we are considering. Amendment No. 5, to insert the word "human",


was proposed because, without that word, the Clause would have the curious side effect of making it illegal to send out any circular advertising any pamphlet or book on artificial insemination in animals. It was pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture has in the past sponsored the publication of such pamphlets. Thus, if he were to draw attention to the publication of pamphlets which he himself had sponsored, he would be performing an illegal act under Clause 4. Clearly, that would be non-sense. Thus, Amendment No. 5 withdraws from the ambit of the Clause the whole question of artificial insemination in animals, which is so important to the farming community.
That still left the question of, as it were, nonsense prosecutions because, as I have pointed out, almost every publisher in some book is possibly at risk. Almost every publisher has on his list some book which describes in scientific or medical terms some aspect of sexual technique. He would be liable to prosecution if anyone cared to bring him before the courts, and the prosecution really could not fail under the terms of the Clause as it stands. The effect on the publishing world would be very serious indeed without amendment of the Clause.
The question was how we could carry out the intention of the House to eliminate the undesirable circulars which so many of our constituents have received while limiting the threat of frivolous prosecutions. The other place wisely decided that the best way in which to deal with the problem was to add another subsection:
A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not, in England and Wales, be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
That means that no prosecution will be brought unless the Director of Public Prosecutions is himself convinced that the publisher concerned is in fact attempting the practices which we in the House unanimously have felt to be undesirable and an invasion of people's privacy.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I rise to speak to the Amendment only very briefly, because I know that the whole

House and thousands of men and women in the country are anxious that we should get on to the Anti-Discrimination Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). I should like first to say a word of commendation to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for the way he has put this important Bill through Parliament.
At one stage, I was one of those who initiated the inclusion of Clause 4 to deal with the numerous publishers of this kind of advertising and literature. We are concerned with kinds of publications which give much offence to many people. Only this week, more people in my constituency have been complaining to me about the Julian Press, whose advertising is such that the descriptions of the techniques mentioned cause offence to people that they are even thought to be the kind of people interested. One of my constituents said that she and her husband went through their post with the children in the morning, and she said that this kind of circular caused them grave offence. I hope that the action now being taken will stop this kind of offensive literature being sent round the country.
It is not a matter of whether we are offended or consider it to be objectionable. Rather we should heed the sensitivity of many other people in the country. Some say that people should have the right to see and hear and experience what they wish, that there should be no censorship. Whether one agrees with that or not, one has to accept that those who are offended by the things they see or hear have a right to be protected by Parliament against things which cause affront, and I am glad that we are acting in this way today.
We sometimes tend to forget that the duty of Parliament as the Prayer Book reminds us—and the Prayer Book has been accepted by Parliament over the centuries—is the maintenance of true religion and virtue and the punishment of wickedness and vice. Today we have reached the stage when it is difficult to decide what is virtue and what vice, and I hope that we can do more in the days ahead through legislation of this kind which has the support of both Houses to end some of the things to which people rightly object.
Nowadays, when the Press seem to believe that sex must be in all the head-lines in order to sell the papers, while at the same time the newspapers decry our obsession with sex, more and more people are feeling that there should be far more protection for those who feel sensitive about it. The House will do well to accept the Amendment to do what we had in mind when the matter was before the House earlier.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in the general welcome which he has given to the Amendments from another place. I should like to make one comment about the limitation to human technique and the Clause generally as it now stands.
For the reasons my hon. Friend gave, it is plain that this was a necessary Amendment, and it greatly improves the Clause. Were it not made, material sent out by perfectly respectable firms dealing with agricultural matters would have been caught by it, and they might have found themselves, subject to the limitation of the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions, liable for prosecution, and that would have been a wholly invidious position but for the protection given by the second Amendment.
I should like to say a word or two about the Clause as it stands with the Amendment. Some doubt has been expressed in a number of quarters whether in fact the Clause as now amended in fact does what those who first proposed the Clause sought to do, that is, to bring within the ambit of the Bill material which, while not itself describing or illustrating sexual techniques, advertises material which describes or illustrates sexual techniques. The distinction is perfectly plain.
The circulars sent out by the Julian Press have been the subject of comment by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, but those circulars in themselves do not contain obscene material. Those circulars in themselves do not describe or illustrate sexual techniques. What they do is to advertise material which describes or illustrates sexual techniques, and as such they are an affront to many people who receive them.
I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who has not received numerous letters from constituents who have been affronted in this way and who are entitled to have their privacy in their own homes protected from such affront.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I notice that Clause 4 goes on to say
or advertising material for any such publication
It may be that it would be covered by that, but my hon. and learned Friend is on an exceedingly good point and certainly the Minister ought to look into it.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact that is the point to which I was coming. It is questionable whether the Clause as now amended does what the House has obviously sought to do. Personally—perhaps I am sticking my neck out, as they say—I think that it does, although that will be a matter for construction in the courts. I believe that the words of limitation
which describes or illustrates sexual techniques
govern the reference to
any book, magazine or leaflet which he knows or ought reasonably to know is unsolicited
and that by adding the words in the parenthesis
or advertising material for any such publication
we have in fact saved the advertising material from being governed by the words
describes or illustrates sexual techniques".
The point I am making, and I hope that I am not making too heavy weather of it, is that it is a matter of construction and that in my view the situation is saved and that the court will say that the material which advertises material which describes or illustrates sexual techniques will be caught by the Clause. I hope that that is so. That is what we all desire.
It will have to be dealt with in the courts in due course. There is a danger here but, whether or not there is a danger, we have taken an important step forward in dealing with what has become a most pernicious practice in our community and one which has affronted a great many people.
I equally welcome Amendment No. 6, which makes prosecution subject to the


consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We all know that there is a large field of the criminal law in which offences are committed which have been created by Statute, where it would be perfectly possible for frivolous complaints to be made. Indeed, the ordinary citizen himself has a right to bring a prosecution. Unless there were some such limitation as this, one might find the courts inundated by frivolous prosecutions. It has therefore been the practice for a a very long time for Parliament to state that in such cases there shall be no prosecution without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
An interesting example is the Theft Act, 1968. By section 30 it is possible for a spouse to be charged with the theft of the other spouse's property. But the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is necessary. Otherwise the courts might have been subject to an infinite number of prosecutions, I will not say necessarily frivolous prosecutions, but prosecutions that might have been affected by emotions running extremely high; and which thereby could be frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. Therefore, Section 30(4) of the Act lays down that such prosecutions can be initiated only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is a good example of what has been done in a very large number of Statutes and the present is quite obviously a most proper case for so providing. I am extremely glad that their Lordships have made this Amendment, and I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham in welcoming it.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I welcome Amendment No. 6 wholeheartedly, particularly as the rather wide wording of the Clause might lead to difficulties, especially as regards the words
… sends or causes to be sent …
I did not have the benefit of hearing the debate on Report, and until I read the Bill I had expected that this act would be limited to sending through the post or sending by public delivery of some sort. That is not the case. Clause 6, which is the definition Clause, states:
'send' includes deliver, and 'sender' shall be construed accordingly".

That is a very wide definition indeed, and might be held to include merely handing a book to a friend, or something of that kind, which is delivering it. What I think Members of this House and members of the public are particularly incensed by is the use of the Royal Mail for the purpose of disseminating this much. It is that that they particularly wish to stop.
On a strict reading of the Clause as drafted, even the most innocent or the most private form of delivery is inhibited. If an hon. Member were to hand, even for the purpose of study or academic study, to another hon. Member in the Library material as example of this work or advertising, as I understand the definition of "send" that would, prima facie, be an offence.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If someone were handed a publication of any kind, be it booklet or pamphlet, and the person concerned presumably did not want it, that would not in such a case be solicited. The recipient, however, would be able to refuse it, and that handing over would not come within the provisions of the Clause.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: By Clause 4 the offence is committed by the sender—the person who sends—and not by the recipient, whether or not the recipient is a willing recipient. The willingness or otherwise of the recipient is neither here nor there. In the cases that are usually given the recipients are very unwilling recipients, and it is they who bring these matters to our attention.
I am therefore extremely glad that we should have this safeguard, as the opportunities for prosecution would otherwise be enormous.
11.45 a.m.
Amendment No. 5, by which the offence is limited to the illustration of human sexual techniques, makes one wonder whether their Lordships and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) are perhaps too innocent in these matters. It seems to me that a really go-ahead pornographer would have no difficulty in dressing up the figures with slight characteristics of monkeys, gorillas, or the like, or dressing them up in, not sub-human but in angelic or celestial form—as, say, angels or archangels. They would thus escape the


definition of human sexual techniques, but would to all intents and purposes achieve the objectives that pornographers seek. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham considered whether this Amendment does not perhaps offer a hole through which the go-ahead pornographer might drive a coach—I will not say horses, in case I worry the bishops—

Mr. Goodhart: In another place, the bishops were not worried.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That being so, I feel that my grave, serious and worrying doubts allayed.

Mr. Ernle Money: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider the situation in which material could perfectly properly demonstrate animal sexual techniques and so be perfectly acceptable in the farming community but, sent unsolicited through the post, could, although perfectly proper in itself for its purpose, cause offence? One thinks particularly of the situation in regard to bulls, and animals of that sort.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There is that very grave danger, and there is even graver danger of the problem of mixed human and animal—the problem of bestiality, which is a really serious matter. I hope that my hon. Friend, their Lordships and the bishops are satisfied that the phrase "human sexual techniques" is sufficient to cover the problem of the crime of bestiality.

Mr. Money: I spoke in support of Clause 4 on Second Reading, and I particularly welcome Amendment No. 6, which provides for the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Although in the past there was something which most people thought of as a motor car more than anything else—the Attorney-General's fiat—for many classes of offence, I hope that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be taken as a rather more serious matter with regard to establishing a consistent policy for prosecutions of this type.
One of the grave difficulties of trying to enforce a consistent policy with regard to obscenity and pornography has been the wide divergence of magistrates' courts in regard to the common law and, indeed, to some statutory offences. We

have had the ludicrous attitude of some magistrates' courts to accepted works of classical fiction. One thinks here of the Swindon magistrates, who accepted a prosecution in regard to "The Decameron". I therefore hope that the proposed insertion here of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be accepted by the courts as building up a pattern which will apply throughout the country. Nothing is more unsatisfactory than the position which often arises regarding the licensing of films and plays. Nothing is more unsatisfactory about prosecutions of specific works than the fact that something which is prosecuted and dealt with severely in one area may not be illegal in another.
The advantage of the provision is that it is in effect mandatory. It does not initiate a test of obscenity which must be considered by justices. It introduces a mandatory offence, subject to the fact that the matter will go through the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and he will be able to say whether a prosecution is justified on the basis that it needs the attention of the legislation, or whether, as was indicated in the debate on this matter in another place, some publications—for instance, a recent number of Which—which are perfectly respectable in their intent and content and should not justify the kind of frivolous prosecution—

Mr. Cormack: Surely what my hon. Friend is saying is not entirely relevant because Which is issued only to subscribers and therefore is not unsolicited.

Mr. Money: I take my hon. Friend's point. But there is lacuna in that it is heavily distributed to non-subscribers on the basis of seeking subscriptions and could fall within that part of the legislation dealing with
advertising material for any such publication.
I turn to the principal point on which I welcome the second part of the Amendment. I hope that this will be treated as the basis in future legislation—and I think that future legislation will be needed to deal with many of the problems of obscenity—for establishing a common pattern so that people, and particularly magistrates, know where they stand and will not act in the dark. To that extent, I hope that the consent of the Director


of Public Prosecutions will be treated as a reality and not merely as the attractive medieval anachronism which the "motor car" known as the Attorney-General's fiat represents.

Mr. Onslow: My welcome for Amendment No. 6 is more qualified than that of my hon. Friends. I do not think that the Clause goes far enough. Nothing would satisfy me more than that the earth should open and swallow up Julian Press, its stock, employees, wives, cattle—the lot. Most of my constituents feel the same. At the height of the campaign which it was running in my constituency last year, when I was receiving 10 or 15 letters a day on this matter, I think that even the condign punishment which I have just outlined would have been thought to be generally inadequate.
I suppose that it is necessary that we should welcome the qualification of the powers of prosecution which the Clause gives. But I hope that it is not inappropriate to enter a plea that the attitude which the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) outlined is not that which necessarily guides the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not right to define the problem we are seeking to deal with simply in terms of sensitivity. I do not accept the argument that we have to defend the tender susceptibilities of some among us on the basis that insensitivity is the norm unless grave personal affront is caused to individuals by it.
I do not think that "permissive" is the correct definition of the society in which we live. In many cases, a more accurate description would be to say that it is a "dictatorial" society. The hon. Member for Newark said that some people say that everyone has a right to see and hear what he or she wishes. That is true. It is as true of the majority as of the minority. The majority of people —and I believe this to be the case in this context—have a perfect right not to see and hear things they do not wish.
I take it that it is a fairly democratic proposition to say that the minority of people have no right to force their standards on the majority. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) talked about people having the right to know where they stand. That applies with as great force to the people who are

not sensitive but who genuinely do not want to have this stuff forced upon them. I therefore hope that the criterion of prosecution will not be that there are some shrinking violets among us who must not be trampled upon but that there are standards which no one has a right to force on society and that when there is infringement in this respect there should be no hesitation to prosecute.

12 noon.

Mr. Ridley: It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to say a few words now about the Amendments. Perhaps what I say will give second thoughts to some hon. Members. My intention is not to bring the debate to an end but to bring some ideas to the attention of hon. Members about what I think is admitted by all to be rather difficult matter from the point of view, not so much of intention, but of the law and of what we are doing.
We are all very sad that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is not able to be with us. In a way, he got us into the difficulties which my hon. Friends have been discussing, and we wish that he was here to give us the benefit of his views on how we should get out of them. There has never been any dispute in any quarter of the House that the issue of circulars such as that issued by the Julian Press and others which hon. Members will remember should be stopped. There has never been any doubt that we should like to see the obnoxious practice of sending circulars through the post—many of them offensive in themselves but others advertising offensive material—brought to a complete end. Our difficulty is how to do it.
When on Report my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and myself independently came to the conclusion that there were some defects in the Clause, we wished in no sense to prevent the intention of the Clause from being fulfilled. We simply wondered whether the Clause as drafted would achieve its object. Since the House demonstrated by the vote on that occasion its will that a Clause of this sort should be included in the Bill, the Government felt it right that the Clause, as it comes back to us from another place, should be allowed to stand. Indeed, we


have no alternative but to allow it to stand in the Bill. However, before we part with the Amendments we should carefully consider their effect. I hope that all hon. Members will accept that our aims are the same and that there is no question about what we are trying to achieve.
There are two quite separate points I should like to dwell on. The first deals with the first of these two Lords Amendments, the one which adds the word "human". We had this morning in The Times an article quoting something written in the New Law Journal, and The Times, with a quotation from the other paper, says:
The Bill, now before the Lords, makes it a criminal offence to send out material 'which merely describes or illustrates human sexual techniques'. The journal emphasises that there is nothing in the clause to suggest that the material against which the full rigour of the law is to be applied need be obscene.
This is the difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and others have already put their fingers on, that human sexual techniques may indeed not be obscene or offensive in any respect. For instance, a kiss might be defined as a human sexual technique but nobody in his senses would think it obscene. Equally, by excluding the animal kingdom, we may —though none of us would wish it—exclude the sex life of newts. We may exclude some material which is not obscene. One of my hon. Friends has already made the point that it would be perfectly possible to imagine pornographic literature describing animal sexual techniques, and it could be most offensive, particularly to children, if it were done in too lurid or pornographic a fashion. That would not be entirely excluded by acceptance of this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Money: My hon. Friend uses the word "pornographic". What causes concern to some hon. Members is that matters which are not per se pornographic could be likely, when sent out unsolicited, to cause offence to some sectors of the community. This was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). I hope the Minister will deal with it.

Mr. Ridley: The conclusion I was coming to was that, at the end, the question of what is obscene is and always

has been a matter of taste. It is impossible to define in words in the law objectively what is obscene and pornographic and what is not. Therefore, whatever words we were to include in the Clause would be imprecise, because some persons would find the material obscene and others would not. We have not the means of deciding what it is that is obscene and what it is that is not.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What the Bill seeks, quite properly, to do is to prevent from being sent out material which is not wanted. By bringing in the Director of Public Prosecutions what we are doing now is to make the Director of Public Prosecutions a sort of censor as to what may go to those of the public who have not asked for it. That would be correct, would it not?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has come to the conclusion to which I expected to come in a few minutes. He has anticipated what I was going to say. I should like to bring up one or two other matters before getting to that point to which he has got with his usual quick brilliance.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen referred to the meaning of the word "send". Again it is not clear what the meaning of this would be, and I would not wish to express a legal opinion, but I would have thought that even to give a friend something could be construed as "sending", and so the Clause is as wide as can be both as to the meaning of the material and as to the method of its delivery. By Lords Amendment No. 5 and the word "human" we are restricting the matters to those to do with human beings, rather than to matters dealing with animals.
I would, however, confirm that I am advised that it would certainly cover the question of bestiality—as my brief says, activities between humans and animals. I do not quite know what that means, but activities between humans and animals would be covered by the word "human" because, clearly, it would be quite wrong to absolve from the ambit of the Clause leaflets or books which carried details of bestiality.
I should like to suggest one other possible difficulty which the House might like to consider. At earlier parts of the Bill we were very concerned to prevent


perfectly reputable firms from being subject to hoax orders. For instance, in Committee we took great care to look after the rights of perfectly reputable mail order firms which might be subject to hoax orders, collusive hoax orders of a sort which would allow the recipients to claim that they were in possession of goods—which had been ordered through third parties—and which they did not want. It would be possible to imagine somebody asking a firm which produces this sort of material, pornographic or whatever we like to call it, to send literature of this sort to people who have not asked for it. Perhaps they are enemies. Perhaps it is done for a joke. Perhaps it is done just to create mischief. Certain firms which specialise in circulating material of this sort to people who genuinely want it could be put in an extremely difficult position if they received hoax orders asking that such and such a book on sexual techniques be sent to the following address—whereas the address is in fact that of an enemy, or somebody having a practical joke played upon him.
It would be very unfair if the firm concerned in such a case were to be prosecuted and convicted for sending unsolicited material of this sort when the firm was a victim of a hoax order.

Mr. Cormack: Surely that is not entirely a conclusive argument, because the supplying firm would have in its archives a copy of the original order and the firm could produce it?

Mr. Ridley: That is a possibility, but the point I am coming to is that these matters will fall to be decided by the Director of Public Prosecutions when deciding whether he should institute a prosecution in any particular case; he will decide whether the material is offensive, whether it was sent or not, whether it was solicited, whether it was sent because of a hoax or not. All of these points will be for him to assess before he decides whether or not there should be a public prosecution. Of course, eventually the courts will have to decide.
However, I think the House is in danger of putting on to the Director of Public Prosecutions a moral censorship when it is unable to put into words, has been unable to devise words, to define what it is it wishes to prevent.

Mr. Skeet: Suppose that in a book of 800 pages there were one thing which would be offensive. Would that bring that book within the mischief of the Bill?

Mr. Ridley: Technically but of course the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to decide whether the inclusion of that one thing in a book of 800 pages would seem to him sufficiently wrong that he should decide to allow a prosecution. The point which I am making is that the House is placing upon the Director of Public Prosecutions a very heavy responsibility in the exercise of discretion in these matters.
It is entirely right that the second of these Lords Amendments, Amendment No. 6, could be accepted to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to have in all cases the decision whether a prosecution should be made, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the result would be to make him the arbiter of what is obscene or not. This would devolve upon the Director of Public Prosecutions a judgment in a matter which the House has been unable to frame words in this Clause to define, and which is not very much help as to what it is the House is trying to do.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would the Minister not agree that the matter goes further than that, because the Director is not concerned with obscenity but with what is offensive to the public taste? That is an even more difficult criterion for somebody in his position to judge.

Mr. Ridley: The words in the Bill refer only to something which
describes or illustrates sexual techniques".
The Bill does not mention either obscenity or whether something is offensive.

Mr. Money: Surely the matter goes further than my hon. Friend says. It will not be the offensive nature of the material as such, but the liability of the material as such to offend individuals who have not solicited it. Something may be offensive in itself in its own circumstances but at the same time could cause considerable offence. For instance, the sort of letters which are received by hon. Members in this House might well cause different reactions if sent to elderly ladies or to members of the clergy, or nuns in holy orders.

Mr. Ridley: That may be right. The provision does not says that what the Director has to have regard to in deciding whether to prosecute is the liability of material to cause offence to certain categories of people. He has to take on himself the responsibility of deciding what are the circumstances in which he would be right to initiate a prosecution. The only point I make is that the House has given him very little guidance.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) questioned whether the Clause would catch the Julian Press circular. As this is the main intention of the Clause, and is the reason the House would like to see this Bill on the Statute Book, it is an important and pertinent question whether we think the Clause will do what it is intended to do. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the difficulty of deciding whether the words
describes or illustrates sexual techniques
did or did not apply to the words in brackets
or advertising material for any such publication.
If this description applied only to a book, magazine or leaflet, then the advertising material would not be included in the ambit of the Clause—

Mr. Grieve: I do not think that is the point I was submitting to the House. If the words
describes or illustrates sexual techniques
apply only to the book, magazine or leaflet, then advertising material is caught by the Clause. That is only in the event that a court should decide that the words
describes or illustrates sexual techniques
must apply also to the words in parenthesis
advertising material for any such publication".
But if the advertising material did not itself illustrate the techniques, the senders of the advertising material would get off scot-free. I think the Clause will achieve what we seek to do, but there is an element of doubt.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. and learned Friend has had two tries at explaining the point and I have had one. I am sure that he, in both his tries, did better than I, but I was certainly seeking to explain the same point.
Since the House has no means of clarifying this matter, since this is an Amendment from the other place, it will have to be decided in the courts. I find it difficult to give a firm opinion as to what the courts will say. The Government's advice as to the exact meaning of the Clause is uncertain. I must advise the House that there is some genuine doubt whether the wording of the Clause is effective against the particular Julian Press leaflet, which is perhaps the stock example which we are discussing. However, we are powerless at this stage to clear up the matter because there is no opportunity to amend the Bill. The only thing we can do is to make it clear and plain that it is the intention of Parliament that these circulars should be included, and then to leave it to the courts to interpret the legislation.

Mr. Onslow: Surely there is an intervening stage. It must be made clear to the Director of Public Prosecutions that it is Parliament's intention that a prosecution will result.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: Yes, but the way we operate in this House is not to make speeches in the hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions will read them and know what we mean—indeed, very often he might be confused if he had to rely on such means of communication. What we do in Parliament is to pass legislation in which the words are precise and clear so that the Director is entirely aware of Parliament's intention.

Mr. Cormack: There is a danger that the Minister's caveat will collide with the Attorney-General's fiat. If the English language and the rules of syntax have any meaning, it is abundantly plain that advertising material is included. If it is not, we have good cause for quoting Mr. Bumble who said that the law is an ass. Surely no self-respecting lawyer could read into the Clause anything other than that.

Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that the Director, who must be a self-respecting lawyer if ever there was one, is in some doubt whether this would allow him to bring a prosecution against the Julian Press. I can go no further than to tell my hon. Friend what the Director himself thinks and it is for the Director to decide if any case comes before him under the Bill.

Mr. Onslow: This is a serious point. If that is the position, my hon. Friend is making a strong case against the Amendment. Unless he can assure me that he sees some advantage from the point of view of public policy in the prosecution of this kind of material, I doubt whether the House should accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: The Amendment does not affect the problem. The problem is whether the Clause contains sufficient powers to catch within its ambit these circulars. This would not mean that it would get over the difficulty, because the court would still hold that it did not include the circular.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Could we get one of the Law Officers to give a legal opinion on the interpretation of the law and the Amendment? This is a matter of concern to the House. I strongly object to the Julian Press advertising such literature, and I want to see an end put to its distribution.

Mr. Ridley: I am telling the House that legal advance has been obtained and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been consulted. As I said on Second Reading, we were always dubious whether the Clause was the right way to achieve the object which the House had in mind. I advised the House at that time to that effect. I am now continuing to advise the House that there is some doubt whether the Clause will achieve what it sets out to achieve. This is a Private Member's Bill, not a Bill drafted by the Government, and the Government have no chance to say how the Bill should be drafted.
The Amendment was put down on Report, when I advised that it was not well drafted. The House decided to proceed with it, so we have been powerless to inform the House as to the consequences of the Clause as drafted. The House is still free to come to a decision on these Amendments, although it is not free at this stage to decide whether or not the Clause should remain in the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There seems to be a good deal of confusion on this. The Amendment does not lay the whole onus on the Director of Public Prosecutions, because it says that no prosecution shall be instituted

except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is, therefore, much more flexible. If he does not want to exercise censorship, it would be reasonable for him not to oppose a prosecution. He may not necessarily approve of it entirely, but he need not oppose it.

Mr. Ridley: That is true, but the Director would have to decide whether to approve a prosecution, which is exactly the same as saying that it is his responsibility whether or not a prosecution will take place. My hon. Friend is splitting a hair. The ultimate decision must be with the courts. If a test case is brought it will be for the courts to interpret what the Clause as drafted means.
The right course would be for the House to accept both Amendments as they probably improve the Clause. We have no alternative but to accept or reject the Amendments; we cannot accept or reject the Clause. We should amend the Clause in the way their Lordships have suggested, and then over a period see what the precise interpretation of the Clause by the Director and by the courts will be. If after that period we have the report of the Committee on Privacy under Mr. Younger, we shall have further information on how best this menace might be tackled, and, if necessary, further provision can be made. I therefore commend the two Amendments to the House. In no way do I wish to quarrel with any hon. Member about the objects of the Clause. I merely believe it to be the duty of the Government to bring into the open the technical difficulties.

Mr. Bishop: I recognise that the Director of Public Prosecutions has a job to do. It appears that he is already uncertain about the meaning of the Clause. Because the Director of Public Prosecutions seems to interpret his job in relation to the Obscene Publications Act and the meaning of depravity "and" "obscenity" in such a liberal way, the House may be more restrictive so as to achieve what cannot be achieved by other means. We hope that the Director will pay heed to the strong feeling of the House on these matters.

Mr. Ridley: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's interjection was not


designed more for the Director of Public Prosecutions than for myself.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I started by supporting the Amendments, but as the morning has progressed I have become more doubtful. I am particularly concerned about the point first raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) on the advertising material and the way in which it can be caught.
I have been approached by constituents who have received the kind of leaflet that has been referred to. Both the major companies concerned in advertising these books have been active in the Nottingham area and their activities have caused great offence. As one of my constituents put it, leaflets advertising so-called advanced sexual techniques may fall into the hands of young people and children. Secondly, some members of the public consider that the leaflets are an invasion of their right of privacy. They do not see why leaflets for which they have not asked, and which are positively unwanted, should be sent to them.
I do not take an alarmist view of the so-called permissive society, but we must distinguish carefully between whom we are setting out to protect and from what we are setting out to protect. First, it is reasonable to protect the young from these leaflets. There are restrictions on the cinema, for example, to protect young people from seeing films which are considered unsuitable. Even the critics of censorship would support this. It is obviously much more difficult to take preventive action in relation to unsolicited goods.
The second class we must protect is the public generally. The public should be protected from material which deliberately sets out to exploit sex. Under a thin veil claiming that they are helping in sex education, these companies are putting out material which is designed to attract certain readers. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned the leaflets put out by the Julian Press. The Julian Press is still continuing to send out leaflets. Only this week a constituent wrote to me about the latest leaflet which had been circulated. The undesirable activities of this company continue, despite all the discussion we have had in the House and the action which we hope to take.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Julian Press is continuing to circulate leaflets, but it is far more serious than that. The Julian Press is now starting a second flood of filth in many areas, including my constituency.

Mr. Fowler: I do not know the exact extent of the activities of the Julian Press, but, from what has been said this morning, it is clear that the company has no intention of desisting from its policy and seems to have started a new propaganda campaign for its pornography.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I may be able to assist my hon. Friend and put forward to the House a point of interest. A constituent of mine only this week received from the Julian Press a leaflet precisely the same as the original leaflet which caused so much offence when it first appeared a couple of years ago. Clearly a second mailing drive is going on in Scotland as well as in England. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of the leaflet is clearly demonstrated not so much by its general content as by the the so-called warning in red type appearing on the front cover, which is clearly a titillation of salaciousness?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have the leaflet that was sent to my constituent, and I imagine it to be the same as that sent to him. Under the guise of trying to help married couples, the leaflet contains words and implication intended to attract a completely different reader. The words that it uses all lead to the conclusion that they are trying to attract not a serious audience but a certain kind of reader who they hope will buy this kind of book.
12.30 p.m.
I may give an example. They do not say that the material they are putting forward is the most serious attempt in this field to explain, for example, sex education. The kind of words they use are that it is the "most intimate book," "the frankest book," "the most uninhibited book," "the most revealing book," "the most advanced book." They say:
The complete frankness of the photographs—each position—every variation—is portrayed in full and intimate detail.…Each photograph is accompanied by a frank commentary.


They continue by saying:
This book is already a runaway best seller…
In other words, their purpose is quite clearly a commercial exploitation of sex perverts.
I give two other illustrations from what is only a short letter. The leaflet itself continues:
a special good will offer…
It includes a guarantee, and the person concerned who is fool enough to send his money for this book signs something which says:
I understand that I may be refunded in full if I return the book within seven days.
I would not put very much weight upon that guarantee.
One would note also the hypocrisy of this firm, which asks the person who responds to the advertisement to sign a declaration that he or she is over 21. It would be extremely interesting to know how on earth they checked that that was the case. Of course, it is absolute nonsense. They are not in the least concerned whether the person is over 21 or under 21.
As has been pointed out, one of the disturbing points is the warning which is given, a warning on the front of the letter. I do not want to encroach upon warning letters, which arise in a later debate. But the warning in this case acts not as a warning but as an incentive to the kind of people who want to buy this kind of book. It is a matter of enormous concern that the Bill should properly catch this kind of advertisement.

Mr. MacArthur: I am a little concerned that this debate, perhaps may increase the market for this publication by calling wide attention to it. Would it not be as well to point out that the book itself will be remarkably disappointing to those who respond to the leaflet because of the titillation which it provides of salaciousness. It is the leaflet which is offensive, much more than the publication itself.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has the advantage of me if he has seen the book to which the leaflet refers. The simple pointing out of the hypocrisy of the advertising will not cause an increase in sales of the book. There is a necessity for

the Bill to cover that kind of advertising material. That is where my concern lies.

Mr. Cormack: The book is in the House of Commons Library. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) has been to collect it. I referred to it on Second Reading. I should like my hon. Friend to look at it afterwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth has just said that it is very much less exciting than the circular would have us suppose. The pictures resemble nothing more than a rather innocuous all-in wrestling. They are certainly athletic.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for that guidance upon the contents of the book. When the Minister has finished reading it, perhaps I could glance at it as well.
But this is a well-known advertising technique. These days one sees advertisements for theatre shows such as "Oh Calcutta", which are far more likely to bore rather than to corrupt. I do not want to make light of this. It is not a matter which should be laughed off but one of deep concern.
I am concerned by what the Minister said about the advertisement. He said that he is not clear about the way these advertisements, to which we all object, will be covered. The other main organisation in this field is called the Running Man Press. Again, leaflets from this firm have been sent to my constituent. It is easy to make fun of the books which are catalogued in the leaflet sent to my constituent. It is easy enough to come to the conclusion that anyone who is fool enough to pay £4·50 for a book on the rationale of the dirty joke deserves what he gets. But there are rather more serious and sinister books, and one of these advertisements is for what they choose to call the "contemporary equivalent of de Sade". Several studies of actual murder cases in this country in recent years have suggested that it is exactly this kind of book that can have a very serious effect in warping further an already unbalanced mind.

Mr. Cormack: The moors murder.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend intervenes to mention the moors murder. Indeed there were several studies on that murder which came to that conclusion. To those who say that these books can have no effect, I reply that if they read


one of these studies which have been carried out, there can be no doubt whatever about the very real and harmful effect such books can have.
All this leads me to conclude and to hope that the advertising material, both from the Julian Press and from the Running Man organisation, will be covered by the Clause.

Mr. Money: Unfortunately, the Bill, even with the Amendments, can, of its nature, cover only offences within the jurisdiction. Both my hon. Friends have already referred as did the hon. Gentleman, to the recrudescence of advertisements now, as it were, coming to its second cycle. There is always the risk—which the House may have to look at later—that bundles of this kind of filth may be sent from outside the jurisdiction, or even from Northern Ireland, which is explicitly omitted from the Bill. It may be that Parliament will have to look at this matter.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has raised a very good point. It is not unknown for mailing lists aimed at this country to be organised from other parts of Europe or even the United States.

Mr. MacArthur: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) has touched on a most important point, but again we do not want to suggest ways in which the intentions of Parliament might be circumvented. Does not my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) think that, if salacious literature of this kind were sent from Northern Ireland, for example, as soon as it came into the mailing system it would constitute an offence against the Post Office Act, failing which it would contravene Post Office regulations under which the sending of filth is itself an offence? I believe that the Post Office has very wide jurisdiction in determining what is and what is not an embarrassing package.

Mr. Fowler: I do not want to deal with that point on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, (Mr. Money), but I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) says. I think that it was right of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to raise this point,

because it is at this stage that we may be able to do something about it.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friends may be interested to know that a prosecution has taken place under the Post Office Act, 1953, which makes it an offence to send obscene or indecent materials through the mail. A conviction was secured against a firm for doing exactly that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) referred. I believe that existing powers are adequate in that respect. It may be that already the powers are adequate to deal with a large range of these problems, though of course, not all of them.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. I hope that it will be noted.
My object in raising these issues in this debate has been to show my concern, which has been increased rather than diminished as the debate has progressed, to see that advertising leaflets which themselves may not describe or illustrate sexual techniques but which advertise books which do just that will be caught under the Bill.
I support that part of the Amendment which affects the Director of Public Prosecutions. To my mind, it brings a uniformity and consistency into the enforcement of the law, and in that respect it is extremely valuable.

Mr. Bishop: If we pass Amendment No. 6, which provides that proceedings shall be brought only with the consent of or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, although that would make for uniformity throughout the country, nevertheless it might hamper individual magistrates. I have seen some of the material which has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions on which no action has been taken. As a magistrate, I have spent time with the Vice Squad looking at some of the stuff, and it is amazing how much is taken for granted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. His officials appear to be quite hardened to it.
If we pass this Amendment, a great many benches throughout the country where magistrates and local people have strong feelings about these matters will be powerless to take action. The present law is such that local courts may institute


proceedings regardless of the wishes of the Director of Public Prosecutions, although I do not think that that is widely known.

Mr. Fowler: I suggest that that is more a criticism of the law as it now stands than of the actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who interprets the law and decides on the likelihood of a prosecution succeeding. I think that any provision which leads to consistency in our prosecuting policy will be a positive advantage. I do not think that it will result in frivolous and unnecessary prosecutions. However, I accept that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) has a serious point, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will address themselves to it if either of them intervenes again.
I am persuaded that this Clause will result in the undoubted villains in pornography, its exploiters, being tackled and at last brought to book successfully. It is an extremely useful step for this House to take.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Cormack: I shall make my intervention reasonably brief, because this matter has been dealt with at great length.
On Second Reading, I think that I was one of the first to talk at some length about the problem to which we are addressing ourselves this morning. It is a matter which concerns hon. Members on both sides. There is an Early Day Motion signed by over a hundred hon. Members which is illustrative of the general concern which is felt about the distribution of salacious material.
The nub of the problem is that significant word in the Title of the Bill, the word "unsolicited". We are not here to debate taste or to set ourselves up as moral censors. We are not trying to say what is good and what is bad, or what a man should read, see and do. We are here earnestly intent on preventing the distribution of material which is not required and which causes revulsion 2nd repulsion when it is received.
It does not matter what a leaflet says or what its pictures show. It may be a photograph of a naked couple, which is

by no means objectionable to many people. But if such a leaflet drops through the letterbox of a recently widowed lady or an aged clergyman, it causes untold suffering and great offence. Such incidents have occurred in my constituency, and they must be stopped. This Clause goes a long way towards tackling the problem.
I was concerned by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the bit in parentheses. However, I do not feel that anyone who has any knowledge of the English language or syntax could possibly think that advertising literature of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) is not included.
I want to make a brief reference to the leaflet circulated by Julian Press. What has not been pointed out is that this institution seems to change its address with some regularity.
When I last spoke on the subject this circular certainly had a different address, an address the same as that of the Earldene Press, another purveyor of questionable material. These things are flooding through the doors of innocent people all over the country and causing offence. This must be stopped and the Clause goes a long way to tackling that problem. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made a witty intervention about the dangers inherent in passing an Amendment containing the word "human". We must all be alive to the possibilities of new demonologies descending on the people of Great Britain to circumvent this regulation. It might be said that the price of cleanliness, like the price of liberty, is eternal vigilance.
I turn now to the second Amendment. I was convinced by the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). Then the Minister spoke and we had an intervention from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and I began to wonder whether we would be serving the interests of the country and fulfilling the intentions of the House in passing this Amendment. I want to reserve my position here. It gives enormous discretion to the Director of Public Prosecutions and if the sort of caveat the Minister entered really does have substance then I wonder whether it


might not be better to reject the Amendment thus leaving it to ordinary citizens to bring prosecutions and to test this matter in the courts.
That way we could be sure that it would be tested in the courts. I know that there are several hon. Members on this side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South who, like me, have come round to this way of thinking during the debate.

Mr. Onslow: The House is in a slight difficulty in obtaining an expert legal opinion on this matter at the moment. No doubt the Minister will return soon. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) could help at this point about the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Amendment No. 6 is embodied in the Bill will there be any way in which members of the public can launch prosecutions? Apparently prosecutions can be brought by the courts, as the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) appeared to suggest. More important, if the Amendment is rejected what effect does that have on the progress of the Bill? Will it in any way prevent the Bill reaching the Statute Book? If it is right, as the Minister has said, that there is some possibility of legislation to implement the report of the Committee on Privacy that might be an opportune moment to consider whether the law should be amended in the way in which this Amendment seeks to amend it.

Mr. Cormack: I should be only too happy to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend if he wishes to intervene at this point. My understanding is that we could retain the Amendment without in any way preventing the passing of the Bill into law. I would be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could confirm that. My understanding of the other point is that no member of the public could institute a prosecution because it is up to the D.P.P. to decide, in the last resort, whether that should be sanctioned.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The answer to the first query raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is clear on the

face of it, because the language of the Amendment, following the normal language in all statutory provisions, is:
… by, or with the consent of.…
If a private citizen wants there to be a prosecution, other than by the Director of Public Prosecutions, he must ask the Director for his consent thereto.
On the second point about the effect of the rejection of a Lords Amendment upon the passage of a Bill, this raises an interesting constitutional point as to what happens if the two Houses are in disagreement. I remember many years ago having an interesting conversation with Lord Simon upon this point. He told me that in our procedure there is nothing definitive to resolve a final conflict in the event of a disagreement between one House and the other. It shuttles up and down until that point is reached. It must follow from that that to reject a Lords Amendment does not make it impossible to put a Measure on to the Statute Book but in the case of a Private Member's Bill, where time is limited, it must at least have an imperilling effect.

Mr. Cormack: I am sure that the whole House is grateful for the wise intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend and his implied advice. I said that I reserved my position but I will not now press this matter to a Division because we all have a tremendous admiration for the hard work put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) who I am glad to see sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—a rightful place for him. We are all so conscious of the work that has been done that I am sure we would not wish to delay this vitally important legislation.
So we will let that go, but let it go with this warning to the country and to those who will have responsibility for prosecutions—and I hope there will be test cases soon: that it is the manifest intention of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that people who purvey this pernicious material, thrusting it upon unsuspecting people, should be prosecuted and punished. That is the manifest intention of the House. The key word is "unsolicited". This is the Unsolicited Goods and Services Bill. It now


includes circulars and literature. Let no one be in any doubt as to what is the intention of hon. Members.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) was kind enough to refer to me—I will not comment on the little innuendo within that reference. When I originally introduced the Inertia Selling Bill, which was a limited but useful Measure of consumer protection, I never in my wildest dreams thought that some time later we would be debating a similar Measure and holding a mini-debate on the permissive society and its ramifications. I suppose that it is a tribute of some sort to the ingenuity of hon. Members that a Clause of this sort has been inserted in such a Measure which is of a basically different nature.
Perhaps therein lies the reason for the difficulties in which the House now finds itself. This is not really the ideal Bill for such a Clause. Everyone agrees that the practice of using the private letterbox and the private mailing list as a sales technique for sending unordered material, which by its nature is bound to give offence to some people, is reprehensible. It is a gross invasion of privacy. The House feels that something should be done about it, but it requires a carefully thought out measure of its own.
The House would be deluding itself if it thought that the Clause, which has many imperfections, will do more than to act in a very limited way. I agree with the hon. Member for Cannock that we should not, in this Bill at any rate, be setting moral standards. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, this involves a judgment of public taste. The poor Director of Public Prosecutions will have to weigh up whether to launch a prosecution on legal grounds, but he would be very insensitive if he did not do so against some judgment of what is public taste. It is almost impossible for anyone to make a proper legalistic judgment against that background.
What one person finds offensive, another does not. Some people regard themselves as very broad-minded, while others are happy to say that they are narrow-minded and find all sorts of things offensive. Like other hon. Members, I

have received many letters from constituents objecting to the circular which has been vividly read out, but I have also received a letter from a constituent asking me to supply the name and address of the Julian Press, because he wanted to obtain one of the booklets, and he seemed most offended that he had not received one of the leaflets. That shows that we cannot always account for everyone's taste. There is always an odd man out.
In our previous debate I said that I do not think that this is a very good Clause, and I stick to that. It is vague, and it should not have been inserted in the Bill. But it has been inserted, and the Amendments make it a better Clause than it was. It is right that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have the ultimate say on whether a prosecution should be launched.
One hon. Member mentioned the divergence of views among magistrates when hearing cases involving obscenity and pornography. This divergence is not surprising, because they are human beings, and a microcosm of the public as a whole, which also has a very wide divergence of view on what is essentially a matter of personal taste.
All in all, reluctant as I am to think that this is an ideal Clause, I think that the Amendments make it better, and I urge the House to accept them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I warmly welcome the Clause, but I do so with more enthusiasm because of the Amendments proposed in another place, particularly Amendment No. 6, which introduces the need for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before prosecutions can be initiated under the Clause.
I agree with the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) that a very limited number of cases will be affected by this part of the Bill. To that extent it is quite a small change in the law, but it is quite a drastic change in principle, and it introduces a wholly new approach to this sort of problem. So far as I am aware, it has never been attempted in any other legislation dealing with this matter.
This involves some dangers, and because of these and the novelty of what is being done in principle, the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions


must be secured. The big difference between the Clause and any other legislation in this field is that it is, as far as I am aware, the only legislation which makes no attempt to include any definition of obscenity, offensiveness, a tendency to corrupt and deprave, or anything like that. What is defined in the Bill is a particular subject matter which it is admitted on all sides can be of scientific or medical interest, or not be offensive if it is treated in a particular way. But that subject matter, however it is treated, in a prurient manner or otherwise, is proscribed by the Bill if it is distributed in a particular way. On the face of it, that is a startling new concept in principle, although it affects the activities of only one or two people distributing one or two leaflets, though on a considerable and regrettable scale.
There are dangers which I think can be overcome. The principle is interesting, and might well deserve examination when the whole question of legislation on pornography, which at present is quite unsatisfactory, is considered. It is a principle that the House can defend, but where the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions is needed to make sure that this first step is not abused.
Before it allows the Measure to go on, the House must defend itself against an attack in the New Law Journal, an authoritative journal which has attacked this part of the Bill in the strongest terms. The article described the Clause as highly objectionable in legal terms. It said that it went further than anything else in the Bill, because it made it a criminal offence merely to send such unsolicited material, whereas the Bill in general was aimed against demands for money and other harassment after unsolicited material was sent. The opinion of the learned writer of the article was that the Clause confused liberty and licentiousness and was not to the nation's advantage. He pointed out that:
… there is absolutely nothing in the clause that suggests that the material against which the full rigour of the law is to be applied need be obscene.
He said that even distributors of perfectly reputable material were put at risk of of severe penalties in an unprecedented way.
The writer added that it was said that the Clause was necessary to protect those

who were offended by receiving unsolicited sexual material, and commented:
Some of it is undoubtedly of a kind which most people would reasonably regard as objectionable. But the clause goes far beyond what is acceptable in criminal legislation, for everything which people even reasonably resent cannot be attacked with criminal sanctions if the criminal law is to be kept in its proper sphere.
That is a serious attack which is worthy of a reply in the House. With every respect to the editor of that journal and the writer of the articles, the Clause can be defended. I think that the writer has confused the field into which the Clause is going. He objects to the fact that the material specified in it is a particular subject matter, regardless of its obscenity or otherwise, and suggests that the House should not intervene to attack subject matter which may no be obscene, where the House is not even attempting to define obscenity and the objectionableness of the material.
We have imperfectly and inaccurately tried to apply a test of obscenity in the law over recent years in relation to pornography which has not worked to the satisfaction of most members of the community, whether they be permissive or anti-permissive. But a test of obscenity is necessary, I submit, in a law which deals with one particular aspect—and that is where obscene publications are being distributed privately to unwilling recipients. In the case of films, for example, it should only be illegal to show them to people who want to see them and go out of their way to see them if there is something obscene, objectionable and contrary to the public interest in the subject matter. Any attempt to reform the law in that aspect will involve an attempt to get a better definition of what it is right to proscribe by law and what it is right to classify as obscene and contrary to the public interest if it is distributed even to people eager and willing to receive it.
This Bill, however, deals with wholly different circumstances. It does not make the subject matter itself illegal. It makes it illegal to distribute material on this subject matter to people who have not solicited or requested it. The Clause is more akin to what I hope we shall develop in future—a law of privacy—than to the law of pornography or indecency. When material is forced upon people or sent to their homes without request, and when


lurid advertising material accompanies it, it is right for Parliament to intervene and say that a private citizen should be protected against having material offensive to him sent to him unsolicited and unexpected. It is, therefore, right to define such subject matter very narrowly, as we are doing.
The definition in the Bill is that of human sexual techniques, which is a subject likely to be embarrassing to an admittedly small number of people, although it is a significant and worthwhile minority and is worth respecting. We say, therefore, that it is an offence, not to publish it, but to distribute it in this way, sending it to people who never wanted it, have no interest in it and can indeed be most unsuitable recipients.
That approach is highly commendable. There is another protection which reassures me and, I hope, the House. We accept that there can be non-pornographic books dealing in part or in whole with this subject matter, but I cannot conceive of any circumstances where a person producing such material for a serious scientific purpose would set about distributing it in this way. Anyone who is producing it for a serious medical, scientific or psychiatric purpose is not going to distribute it by post or send out hand bills in this way.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend has talked about people being pressed to take this material—perhaps some with a morbid curiosity. Has he also considered that vast danger to the rising generation of school girls and school boys in seeing this sort of thing? Should we not take action to ensure that such material does not get into their hands from organisations like the Julian Press?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, I am sure that the serious medical and scientific producers of such literature would agree that it could be harmful in the hands of the wrong people, including the young and, indeed, certain types of patient who might have the wrong sort of interest and whose very last need is for material of this kind. We are justified, therefore, in saying that we are entitled to prescribe this narrow subject matter and to say that any serious scientific producer will not want to distribute in this way. The very

choice of this manner of distribution belies any claim a publisher may make that he has a serious and scientific or medical intention. A distributor who advertises in this way is prima facie the sort of person interested in titillating public interest and exploiting the wrong kind of public interest in sexual material.
The Julian Press should be clear that the lobby for this provision is not part of the most violent argument about obscenity. Even the Julian Press need well not be unlawful if it advertised at bookstalls. There is nothing wrong in selling such material, as the law stands, at a "dirty book" shop in Charing Cross Road, and some of my hon. Friends want to change the law. But all we are saying at the moment is that we want to protect our enraged constituents, of whom there are a great number, and that it is a matter of common sense that such material does indeed belong to a dirty book shop in the Charing Cross Road and must not be sent unsolicited through the post to our constituents.
1.15 p.m.
Having said that, I find the narrow choice of the subject matter somewhat surprising and perhaps an indication that the House does not quite know where this principle is going to take us. The only books which are really adequately covered by the Clause, as amended by Amendment No. 5, are what might be called those dealing with the practical mechanics in human sexual techniques. There are other lines of potential pornographic interest which lie far outside the Clause. One of the things which will impose great limitations on the use of the Clause is that the Director of Public Prosecutions, when he wades through his increased reading matter of potentially pornographic material, will not only have to consider whether it is offensive or pornographic and justifies public steps, but whether it is pornographic in such a way that it comes within this peculiarly narrow definition. He now has to decide whether the material illustrates human sexual techniques. That is going to be difficult to decide even when applied to some grossly pornographic material.
Given the limitation which the Bill is likely to have on the number of cases brought, I want to turn to the potentialities of this principle. I think that we are mostly all agreed in our approach


to the subject of obscene material, for it is a matter on which we are all under great pressure because neither side of the argument is in favour of the present law. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on bringing forward the possibility of distinguishing between what is shown to people who want to see it, and which is only illegal if it is obscene, objectionable and contrary to some public interest, and what is widely available on display or is distributed to unwilling recipients or shown to unwilling audiences. I think that it is a diplay of this material to people who have no interest in it and do not want it which causes such wide concern.
I shall not stray out of order in discussing the possibility of this approach to film posters and that kind of thing, where what is shown is not strictly obscene from the public point of view if it is only seen on the walls of private flats by people who have that kind of interest, but is objectionable because it offends the feelings of people walking by in a public place and who do not want to see other people's pornography advertised in that way. The principle is relevant to the potentialities of this approach in seeking to enlighten the author of the article I have quoted in showing him that this approach is perfectly reconcilable with the criminal law and is a perfectly acceptable approach in relation to this particular subject matter.
A question which has been canvassed and which has caused some little difficulty with Clause 4 is whether the Julian Press advertising material is in fact covered by the Clause as we have now drafted it. This rather intriguing pair of brackets around the words,
or advertising material for any such publication
gives rise to some difficulty.
My own modest view is entirely in accord with that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve)—that the fears, which have been expressed on both sides of the House and which had led to the fears outside, that the Director of Public Prosecutions might not be the right person to exercise this power and that he might not construe the Clause in the right way are ill-founded. My view is that a close examination of the Clause shows that it would clearly catch advertising material

for proscribed matter, even if the advertising material itself did not contain illustrations of human sexual techniques, which is the point being considered.
Clearly, as the Clause now stands, if there were no brackets around those words, advertising material would be covered only if the advertising material itself described or illustrated sexual techniques. The courts, in their way of trusting Parliament, would seek to give some meaning to the insertion of the brackets, which are clearly intended to modify the meaning in some respect, and I believe that a meaning can be given to them, because they clearly exclude from the application of the qualifying phrase,
describes or illustrates sexual techniques
the words in the brackets. What is proscribed is
any book, magazine or leaflet … which describes or illustrates sexual techniques
and
advertising material for any such publication
that is,
any book, magazine or leaflet … which describes or illustrates sexual techniques
I believe that the words in brackets, the subordinate Clause, have not been put in the correct place in the Clause, or in the best position to make that meaning clear, but I am nevertheless encouraged by the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull gives me authoritative support for the view which I am now propounding, which is that the case we have in mind is covered and that the fears of some of my hon. Friends are unfounded.
I hope that the Minister will take the matter further with the D.P.P. in some way and, if it is right that the D.P.P. has some reservations, and I am sure that it is, for my hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has said so, I hope that the D.P.P. will have his doubts resolved in the not too distant future and will not hold back from attacking the advertising material of the Julian Press, which, above all else, is the advertising material, emanating from an extremely disreputable source, which has brought the whole matter before the House and which is uppermost in the minds of my hon. Friends who seek to deal with this matter.

Mr. Skeet: How could the D.P.P. be reassured by the Minister? Surely it is


for the courts, not the D.P.P., to interpret the Clause.

Mr. Clarke: If I misled the House into thinking that the Minister could advise the D.P.P., I was entirely in error. What I hope that the Minister will do is to urge the D.P.P. carefully to consider this matter before coming to a final view, and I am optimistic in the belief that the D.P.P. will share the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend and will decide that he can take steps of the sort described.
I believe that this principle is supportable, but it is essential for the D.P.P. to come to this difficult decision. If members of the public without recourse to the D.P.P.'s office are to make test cases under the Clause—and it has happened in other branches of this law—those who rush to bring the first prosecutions may, unfortunately, be those who misunderstand the purpose and who have their own very narrow and limited view of what in fact Parliament has been trying to proscribe.
As we have found all too often in these matters, ill-conceived private prosecutions more than anything else have brought the whole law into disrepute and made the prospect of prosecuting in any respect much more difficult. Some ill-conceived public prosecutions have had precisely the same effect under the present law. If the public at large, and particularly pressure groups within the general public, are to have unrestrained access to the courts to bring prosecutions under this part of the Bill, that could lead to its being brought rapidly into abuse and a valuable and interesting principle could be brought into disrepute.
Therefore, I welcome the attempt to develop a law on privacy rather than the mounting of an attack at this stage on pornography and obscenity. I welcome this as a first step towards a law of privacy. We have to watch with great care how it is used and what the effect, if any, is. I therefore think that we need the D.P.P. to sanction action under this provsion so that we may have the right control in practice and so that careful use may be made of it in the courts.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) on the moderate and clear manner in which he deployed his case. This is

a subject of great concern to all of us, and it is very much open to exploitation and sensational parliamentary speeches under the privilege of the House.
In his brief appearance at the Box in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) said that he sponsored the original Unsolicited Goods Bill. I was a co-sponsor with him. I believe that that original Bill has been greatly strengthened by Clause 4 in this Bill. It is a great improvement, because we are now to try to deal not only with the unsolicited goods which have caused so much distress but with this new unsolicited advertising material for books which many people regard as offensive.
I do not entirely share the view of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe about the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be only after substantial public participation in prosecutions over a considerable period, prosecutions brought by individuals, that we shall reach the stage at which the Government of the day are forced to introduce legislation to deal with the matter. It is not a party political issue that we are discussing. I condemn both my own and previous Governments as well as the present Government for not bringing forward legislation to deal with an undoubted social evil.
If all Governments have shown this unwillingness to act, it is only by a Private Members Bill such as this, followed by prosecutions by individuals, that the situation will become so scandalous that the Government will step in. It would therefore not be advisable to dilute the good intentions of Parliament by accepting the Amendment.
1.30 p.m.
Other hon. Members have referred to the Julian Press material and to other publications which are now going through constituents' letter boxes. Many of my constituents are being subjected to the second flood of this offensive material. About 18 months or two years ago we had the first deliveries of the leaflets, and I am now beginning to get further letters and telephone calls complaining of the second instalment.
Something must be done. The public are becoming so outraged that there is a danger that, because of the activities of the


Julian Press and other firms of that nature, Parliament will be forced to take action which would be contrary to the public good. We are in danger of being forced along a path of anti-permissiveness, which we do not wish to follow. Unless we deal with this commercial abuse we shall be forced along the road towards censorship, a path which we do not want to travel.
There are people who wish to receive this sort of literature, and to study it. Perhaps they have a need to study it. It is no part of our job here to be so restrictive as to deny to those who feel they need this sort of literature opportunities to acquire it. At the same time, as Members of Parliament we have an absolute responsibility to ensure that ordinary decent families do not have imposed upon them via their letter boxes the sort of stuff now being sent out, which they do not want, which is offensive to them, and which they consider to be damaging to their children when their children look at it.
We are in the dilemma whether to leave the Clause as it is or to amend it. Because I believe that at this stage in the development of the war against this flood of filth we need a certain amount of flexibility, I favour rejecting the Lords Amendment relating to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I accept that there is the danger of undesirable prosecutions, but undesirable prosecutions would be better than no prosecutions at all, which is virtually the present situation. I believe that the Clause as drafted will catch the Julian Press.
Had it not been for the Minister's speech I should not have been quite so concerned about the introduction of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but the Minister has made it quite clear that in his consultations the Director was very doubtful whether the Clause would catch the Julian Press. That is tantamount to the hon. Gentleman telling us that he is reasonably satisfied that the Director is unlikely to institute prosecutions. Such a situation is entirely unsatisfactory. Had not the Minister given that impression we might the more easily have accepted the Lords Amendment, but in the face of the Minister's statement, and in view of the clear intention of the House that Julian Press adver-

tising material and other such objectionable advertising circulars should be caught, we can hardly accept it.
I do not think that the danger of private prosecutions is too great. The Clause as drafted gives to chief constables a degree of flexibility to institute prosecutions within their own areas. Such prosecutions will be properly presented—they will not be crank prosecutions—and they will, in turn, lead to the sort of movement we must generate if we are to bring the Government to accept their responsibilities and to bring forward legislation.
I hope that the House will stand firm in its clearly declared intention to catch this sort of publication and so will resist the Lords Amendment. We shall thereby make a contribution to halting this flood of pornography and filth which is causing so much concern to every decent citizen, while avoiding the road to harsh censorship and policies which might be detrimental to the public good.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) described his intervention as being very brief: mine will be briefer still, not least because of the further very important business awaiting the House this afternoon.
Clause 4 is a good Clause. It is much better and much less controversial than the Clause 4 of which we sometimes hear in a different context. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I feel that the Clause will be strengthened by the Lords Amendment, for the reasons I gave in an intervention when asked for my view by one of my hon. Friends.
On the question whether the words "in relation to advertising material" are apt, I respectfully concur in the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke). It is a canon of construction of a Statute that one must assume that the Legislature intends to have some meaning ascribed to every single word. That statement may come as a matter of surprise to some hon. Members who are engaged in the workshop of the House of Commons rather than in the construction of Statutes in the Courts, but it is so, and while I


do not know that it is specifically stated, for example, in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes that the same doctrine applies to brackets, I have no doubt that in principle it does. It must, therefore, be right that advertising material is caught by the language of the Clause even if it does not itself describe or illustrate sexual techniques. That is the meaning which I understand the framers of the Bill wish the language to have, and which in common sense it should have.
Two criticisms have been advanced against the Clause—first, that it is vague and, second, that it creates an offence without the necessary ingredient of obscenity. I must say that I find nothing vague at all in the language of the Clause. Its terms are commendably clear and precise—partly because it does not make obscenity an necessary ingredient of the offence. There is no doubt that the statutory test of obscenity gives rise to difficulty in its application, but that does not apply to this Clause because what has to be proved are clearly factual matters, not based on opinion. So I submit that the Clause is very clear.
As to the criticism that an offence is created without the ingredient of obscenity, that seems to me to be wholly proper in the limited context of what the Clause seeks to do, in that the gravamen of the offence is the embarrassment and annoyance caused to the innocent recipient who has not solicited the material. As that is the gravamen of the offence, there seems to be no logical necessity to have to incorporate the ingredient of obscenity in the commission of the offence.
Like other hon. Members, I speak as the recipient of a good deal of complaint from constituents about these matters, in the context of which I have tabled Parliamentary Questions, relating, among other things, to the observance or breach of the Companies and Registration of Business Names Acts by advertisers of this sort of matter. Surely our constituents are entitled to protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) this morning received a letter of complaint, enclosing one of these pamphlets, from an elderly lady in his constituency who said:

Surely something could be done to stop these people sending unwanted literature through our letter boxes. Perhaps as an M.P. you may be able to do something about it.
My hon. Friend will be able to write back to her and say that he and the House are doing something about it.

Mr. Peter Rost: I passed the letter, which I opened a few minutes ago, to my right hon. and learned Friend because I understood that he was likely to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mentioned to him that it was the second such letter which I had received in two days from constituents. The first was from a 77-year-old widow who was extremely distressed at receiving this sort of literature. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend would like to know that.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged. It is a topical and graphic illustration of the sort of offence which many hon. Members have found has been given to their constituents.
We are not concerned with wider issues of possible amendment or clarification of the law of obscenity, but this provision should do much to protect people from the unsolicited delivery of this sort of material and from the embarrassment and distress it causes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) on their initiative, and hope that very soon the Bill will become law.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the Bill will be of great assistance when we go into the Common Market because it will prevent certain material from coming from Europe? It is interesting that he should support a Bill which is of assistance in connection with the Common Market.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am appalled at the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) concerning our entry to the Common Market. I wish to speak for only a moment or two on the merits of the Bill and the Amendments, because I am sure that the House wants to debate the other important matter on the Order


Paper on which I wish to express some opinions.
To adopt the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke), I welcome the Bill as a first step towards a law of privacy. That is what is needed. Why should any person, in the privacy of his home, be offended and embarrassed and even distressed by the indiscriminate distribution of sordid, lurid literature such as that which is sent out by the Julian Press? That firm has been mentioned frequently today. During the debate on the Inertia Selling Bill an hon. Member said that it had gone "bust". Unfortunately, it does not seem to have gone into liquidation because hon. Members have mentioned that they have received a second wave of literature from it.
It would be an exaggeration to say that my constituents have been inundated with this sort of literature, but I have received about 12 letters from constituents enclosing Julian Press advertising matter. They have been deeply offended by it. Not only adults but young people have received it. Although I am against rigid censorship, it is wrong that people should be plagued in this dreadful way.
I have looked at the literature from the Julian Press and I agree that it is printed in a way which catches the eye. It may not be obscene per se, but it is deliberate exploitation of what the Lord Chancellor, in another place, called "sexual curiosity for profit".
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) said that the publication of offensive literature may be stopped in this country but it could be sent from places outside the jurisdiction of the Bill. He suggested—and I was shocked at the suggestion—that salacious material would come from Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, but it is right that an Ulster Member should comment on it and welcome it. I do not accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich says because Ulster does not lend itself to these extreme examples of the permissive society. However, I trust that when this admirable Bill becomes law the Parliament of Northern Ireland will enact the same legislation to deal with people who trade in pornography.
I share the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr.

Onslow) whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will consent to the bringing of prosecutions. I am sorry that we have not had the benefit of the legal opinion of one of the Law Officers. We were, however, very pleased to have the benefit of the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). His opinion has satisfied me and it therefore gives me great pleasure to support both Amendments and to welcome the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF POWER OF COURTS TO GRANT INTEREST ON DAMAGES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out from "Where" to "pronounces" in line 9 and insert "a court".

1.48 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would, I think, be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out from "Where" to "court" in line 17 and insert "a", and Amendment No. 4, in line 21, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (1) of this section".

Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are consequential on Amendment No. 1.
None of the Amendments on the Paper alters the principle of the Bill as it was considered on Second Reading on 29th January. I mention that because these Lords Amendments look substantial. Indeed, in some ways they are substantial, but they do not alter the principle of the Bill. Their purpose is to strengthen the Bill by removing any doubt about its interpretation in the courts.
There has been some uncertainty about the precise nature of the law in this matter in Scotland. It is all the more important, if there is any doubt whatever about interpretation of the Bill, that that doubt should be removed.
These Amendments were moved on Report of the Bill in another place a few days ago by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and I should like to say how very grateful I am, as are the hon. Gentlemen who have sponsored the Bill with me, for the very great support which Lord Balerno gave to the Bill in another place where he so kindly acted as its sponsor. It is a happy chance that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is on the Government Front Bench today, and I am grateful to him for continuing an interest in this small but important Bill.
During the passage of the Bill through another place the noble and learned lord Lord Wheatley moved certain Amendments in Committee. All of these were designed, as he made very clear, not to weaken in any way or to change the principle of the Bill, but to underline it by removing doubt from certain points which he, in his great wisdom as a judge, felt might cause some misinterpretation of the intention of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord withdrew his Amendments on the understanding that these matters would be considered, and this Lords Amendment, and those which follow, were moved earlier this week by Lord Balerno in response to that understanding.
This first Lords Amendment is to remove a doubt which has been expressed as to whether the Bill applies to damages for breach of contract as well as to damages in actions of reparation. I am advised that it is the generally accepted view that the 1958 Act, the previous Act affecting interest on damages in Scotland, and which uses the words "in any action for damages", does apply to both these categories of action. That has never been challenged in the courts. On Second Reading, however, I referred to the case of Mcrae v. Reed and Mallik Ltd. in 1961, which has given rise to some questions about the interpretation of the 1958 Act. There are certain dicta in that case which might be raised as ques-

tioning the applicability of the 1958 Act to actions arising from breach of contract. It seems to me that it might be said that the term "action for damages" could perhaps mean an action of reparation, and although this is a doubtful proposition, I submit that it is advisable to remove the reference to make it quite clear that the 1958 Act, as it is to be amended, applies to any action in which the court awards a sum of money as damages.
So while there could be some argument about whether or not the present state of the law needs amending, it seems to me clear from the most experienced sources that some doubt has been expressed about the state of the Bill, and I commend this Lords Amendment because it removes all shadow of doubt.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on the way he has presented this Lords Amendment, and, since this is the first time I have come in direct contact with the Bill, I should like to congratulate him upon his success in carrying it as far as this stage.
As to this Lords Amendment, I would confirm what my hon. Friend said, that doubts have been expressed about whether the Bill applies to damages for breach of contract as well as to damages in actions of reparation, and, as he explained to the House, the Lords Amendment resolves these doubts. It was intended, as he said, that this Bill should extend to all actions in which the courts award a sum of money as damages. This Lords Amendment, and others which are consequential upon it, will ensure that the intention of the Bill is carried into effect. I am sure the House will agree that avoidance of uncertainty is a commendable object, and on behalf of the Government, I am glad to say that we support this version.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 19, after "damages" insert "or solatium".

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would be convenient to take at the same time Lords Amendments No. 5, in page 1, line 23, after
"damages" insert "or solatium";

No. 6, in line 24, after "damages" insert "and on that solatium";

No. 7, in page 1, line 25, leave out "them" and insert "each";

No. 9, in page 2, line 2, leave out "of those damages" and insert "thereof";

No. 11, in page 2, line 5, leave out ""damages" includes solatium, and".

Mr. MacArthur: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, because all of these Lords Amendments are consequential upon No. 3.
I explained to the House a moment ago that the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley raised in Committee on the Bill in another place a number of matters, and these Lords Amendments are to give effect to the undertaking which was given to him to consider whether or not the Bill, as it was when it left this House, might have entitled the courts to restrict unduly the elements of damages on which interest from a date before decree should be awarded, by enabling the court to invoke principles which are now inappropriate in the context of the extended power to award interest. In particular, the noble and learned Lord was concerned that the court might continue to hold it inappropriate to award interest from a date before decree on solatium on the grounds stated in the case of Mcrae v. Reed and Mallik Ltd. to which I referred a moment ago, that solatium is not a replacement for monetary loss Or money wrongfully withheld.
It might be for the general convenience of the House if I remind English Members that solatium means compensation for damaged feelings. Perhaps I use far too much the words of a layman, but I offer that explanation of what the word means. It is, in effect, compensation for pain and suffering.
These Lords Amendments are designed to ensure that, unless there are reasons special to the case why no award of interest should be given, the court will

be obliged, by the new section to be inserted in the 1958 Act, to award interest from a date prior to the date of decree not only on part at least of the damages for personal injuries representing monetary loss, but also on part at least of the element for damages which consists of solatium for personal injury. That, I submit, is exactly in line with the intent of the House on Second Reading of the Bill. The group of Amendments reinforces the principle of the Bill and removes any question of doubt in interpretation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have looked closely at the arguments put forward by Lord Wheatley in the other place and we support this Amendment. The new wording will help a good deal because it puts the matter beyond doubt. To this extent it is worthy of the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 2, line 1, leave out "special reasons" and insert "reasons special to the case"

2.0 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment meets a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley in Committee in the other place. It makes it clear that special reasons for not awarding interest under the Act cannot be reasons of law, which might enable the court to circumvent the obligation to award interest from a date before decree on at least part of both damages and solatium, but must be reasons special to the facts of the individual case, such as the fact that there had been undue delay or some abuse of process making it unreasonable that the particular pursuer should receive an award of interest. This Amendment should be particularly welcome to the House since this point was touched upon by one of my hon. Friends in Committee. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This Amendment again helps to clarify the matter, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in line 2, at end insert:
"(1B) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that where, in any action in which it is competent for the court to award interest under this Act, a tender is made in the course of the action, the tender shall, unless otherwise stated therein, be in full satisfaction of any claim to interest thereunder by any person in whose favour the tender is made; and in considering in any such action whether an award is equal to or greater than an amount tendered in the action, the court shall take account of the amount of any interest awarded under this Act, or such part of that interest as the court considers appropriate".
() In section 2 of the said Act of 1958 there shall be inserted at the end the words "having regard to the provisions of the Interest on Damages (Scotland) Acts 1958 and 1971."

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
All these Amendments are for the removal of doubt and reinforce the principle of the Bill. This Amendment is designed to provide clear guidance in the event of a conceivable turn of events in the course of an action. This point was again raised in Committee in another place and the question then asked was whether the Bill, as it left the House of Commons, would enable the pursuer to obtain the benefit of interest under the Bill in the case where the defender tendered a sum of money in satisfaction of the pursuer's claim in the course of the action.
In the earlier form of the Bill there was some doubt as to what would arise if a case were to be settled during the course of the action. It was suggested by Lord Wheatley that, since the tender would not state whether it included a sum representing interest, and since the court would not have heard evidence on the elements of damages and might be faced with conflicting averments by the parties on the amount of the damages, the court might refuse to award interest on the amount of the tender on the ground that there were special reasons why no interest should be awarded.
It was proposed in another place that it should be made clear that the court may award interest on the sum contained in a tender. I am advised, however, that this would raise certain difficulties. I shall not weary the House by setting out the whole of the details, but

it is important that the argument should be clearly advanced. In particular, the court might still hold that, at least in a large proportion of cases involving tenders, it was nevertheless impracticable to award interest, notwithstanding the power to do so. Moreover, it would in any event be very difficult for the court to make a fair assessment of the interest which should be awarded in such a case, in view of the absence of evidence.
The approach embodied in the Amendment is somewhat different, and I am advised that it would avoid these difficulties. First, it makes it clear that a tender, unless otherwise stated, is in full satisfaction not only of the claim for damages, but also of any claim for interest under the Act. This leaves it to the parties to decide, in the light of their knowledge of the circumstances and it is they who have the best knowledge of the circumstances—whether the tender is adequate to cover both of these elements, rather than giving responsibility to the court, which does not have the necessary information because the evidence will not have been led in court.
Secondly, it is an essential feature of the procedure by tender that the ultimate incentive for the defender to offer by tender an amount adequate to meet the pursuer's claim in the action is that, if he does not do so and the pursuer proceeds to trial and obtains an award greater than the amount of the tender, the defender is normally liable for all the expenses of the action. Conversely, if the pursuer in the award which he obtains after trial does not "beat the tender", he, despite having been successful in the action, will normally be liable for all the expenses of the action subsequent to the date of the tender which, had he accepted it, would have given him an award greater than that which he obtained after trial.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: That is the result of paying money into court. If the appropriate sum is paid in, costs will be saved after that date.

Mr. MacArthur: Possibly so, but if my hon. Friend is patient I am coming to a specific example to explain the situation.
The second part of the subsection, therefore, makes it clear that in considering the question whether the pursuer has "beaten the tender" the court


shall take account of the amount of any interest awarded under the Act or an appropriate part of that interest.
I will give an example to make the situation clear. Let us imagine a defender had tendered £1,000 immediately before the trial and the pursuer recovered at the trial £900, but obtained a decree for £200 of interest in addition the court would be entitled to hold that he had "beaten the tender", taking his award of damages and interest together. We must be fair to both the pursuer and to the defender and I think the Amendment achieves that aim.
The reference to taking account of an appropriate part of the interest is necessary where, for instance, the tender was made at the beginning of the action, say, two years before the trial. In that event, it would be unfair to the defender if account were taken of all the interest in deciding whether the tender had been beaten since most of the interest was for that period of two years, and, at the time when the tender was made, it was in effect greater than the amount eventually awarded at the trial. It can be argued that this merely restates the present law. However, I submit that doubt might exist and therefore it is right, in the interests of both parties, that this Amendment should be accepted to make the situation clear.
There is a second part of the Amendment with which I will try to deal briefly. This is in relation to Section 2 of the 1958 Act, which ensures that in an appeal to the Court of Session from an award in an action for damages heard by a sheriff and jury, the court may review the question of interest on the damages. Section 2 provides that upon any such appeal the court may make
such order as to it seems just".
The noble and learned Lord in another place criticised this wording on the ground that it might suggest that the court had a wider discretion in determining the interest in such an appeal than in a case going before it from the Court of Session. This is not the intention. The Amendment makes it clear that in determining what seems just, the court must have regard to the provisions of the 1958 Act and of the present Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend has explained clearly the effect of the Amendment. It will appeal to the logicality of hon. Members that we should know exactly what these Amendments do so as to avoid any doubt when they come to be interpreted by the courts.
The problem of tenders is an important one and could give rise to difficulty if it is not dealt with properly. There are alternative methods of dealing with the problem. It can be dealt with by requiring the court to add interest to any award of damages where the decree follows minutes of tender and acceptance. The second alternative is to specify that the tender shall be deemed to include interest. That places on the litigants the onus of arriving at a fair and reasonable figure.
The latter course is preferred. Whilst the first alternative removes any uncertainty there might be about the respective rights of the parties and the powers of the court, it would leave the courts with the difficult task of assessing or calculating an appropriate figure for interest on the basis of possibly inadequate and conflicting evidence. It was precisely this difficulty to which attention was drawn in another place. The Amendment disposes of the difficulty by securing that, in effect, the defender, when making a tender, shall include interest therein and that the pursuer, in deciding whether or not to accept that tender, should make his calculations on the basis that the sum in the tender is offered in full satisfaction of his claim, including any interest thereon. Thus, where the tender is accepted, the court will not be required to make any further award in respect of interest. Where it is refused, the subsequent comparison between the tender and the final award, which has to be made in connection with any award of expenses by the court, should not present any difficulty. I support the additional Clause and commend it to the House.
The second part of the Amendment was clearly proposed ex abundanti cautela, which I am told is an important phrase meaning "from an abundance of caution", and this might make it slightly easier to understand.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is it Gaelic?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not sure whether Gaelic is derived from Latin. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who has great knowledge of these matters will be able to advise, the House.

Mr. MacArthur: My hon. Friend, flattering as always, is provoking me to make a long speech, which I will not do. The answer is "No".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wished to give to my hon. Friend the opportunity to show to the House his knowledge of these matters. My hon. Friend has dealt with the Bill in a commendable way. I fear that my last remarks may have added

(1) A person shall not sell, by retail or otherwise, cigarettes packed in a packet containing one hundred cigarettes or less unless the packet bears the statement—



'Warning by H.M. Government Smoking can damage your health'


5
and the statement satisfies such requirements as are prescribed with respect to its place on the packet, size and colour and with respect to such other matters, if any, as are prescribed.



(2) A person shall not, except in prescribed cases, publish in a prescribed manner an advertisement for cigarettes unless the advertisement includes the statement—


10
'Every packet carries a Government health warning'



and the statement satisfies such requirements as are prescribed with respect to its place in the layout of the advertisement, size and colour and with respect to such other matters, if any, as are prescribed.


15
(3) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall 15 have effect with the substitution for the statement specified in that subsection of such other statement as may be prescribed.


20
(4) A person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction or conviction on indictment to a fine which in the case of a summary conviction shall not exceed £400; but 20 regulations may provide that a person who publishes an advertisement in the course of his activities in a prescribed capacity shall not by virtue of this subsection be guilty of an offence in consequence of the publication.—[Sir G. Nabarro.]

Question again proposed.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: On the last occasion we discussed a number of aspects of the Bill. It must be fairly clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that the British Medical Journal vindicates his claim for legislation—

Sir G. Nabarro: This is nothing new. I have said over and over again, ad nauseam, that the British Medical Association backed every claim I made about the Bill.

Mr. Skeet: I hope my hon. Friend will not get too excited. I merely wanted to

more doubt than enlightenment. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TOBACCO (HEALTH HAZARDS) BILL

(changed from TOBACCO AND SNUFF (HEALTH HAZARDS) BILL)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23rd April], That the Clause (Regulation of labelling and advertisement of cigarettes), proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.

pay him an initial compliment before I went on. The advice of the British Medical Association is misconceived in the Bill. Although I am prepared to say that certain labelling should be considered and that there should be insertions in advertisements, this by itself will not make much difference.

What impresses me about the suggestions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that he is going well beyond the Bill. Not only has he suggested a code of practice which will be valuable in binding companies over a long period of time, but he has reserved the right at the end of the day, if necessary, to bring in legislation. He is going


further by setting up an advisory scientific committee to look into these problems and to decide what is essential in the national interest. It would be extremely valuable for members of the public to be able to examine the nicotine and tar content of various tobaccos and to be able to make a comparison between those which are more harmful and those which are less harmful. My right hon. Friend has promised an allocation of funds to the Health Education Council. I hope he will also provide funds to bodies such as the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign which may be doing much work along these lines.

I join forces with the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) in thinking that education is the right answer to this problem. People will not pay much attention to what is written on the side of a cigarette packet or to a long instruction on a cigarette card inside the packet. The only way to change social ideology is to bring up children with the right ideas. I am strengthened in this belief by the words of my right hon. Friend about the disenchantment of youth and the desymbolisation of the cigarette. While youth see smoking as an example which they should pursue, they will continue to smoke and to follow the actions of their elders. When they find that that does not pay, they will abandon the idea and say that smoking is not in vogue. I therefore hope that more stress will be put on this aspect than on anything else.

The Bedfordshire County Council is trying to persuade teachers in schools not to smoke so as to set a good example to the children. This idea should be further extended. My right hon. Friend has in mind an inter-departmental study to find out the effect on the fiscal system, on the rights of the subject, and so on. Few of these points were encompassed in the original Bill. The original Bill has been eliminated, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South has put his signature to the Secretary of State's Clauses which will do a certain amount, but there is much to be done in addition. The Secretary of State has said that he will bring in these measures in two or three phases and that he will try to persuade people that there should be no smoking in cinemas

and concert halls. This is the way in which the matter should be approached and that is why I feel that legislation now would not be satisfactory.

As for offences and penalties, this is the first Bill that I know of which, in its original form, pointed out that certain actions were wrong but provided no penalties. A penalty was proposed in an Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South which would have created an offence liable to a fine of £1,000 on summary conviction. The Amendment was proposed, but it was dropped. It was taken up again by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).

We have another penalty included in the group of Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). He suggested that there should be a penalty against the packagers and vendors of cigarettes. This is totally understandable, but he went on to suggest that manufacturers and purchasers should be penalised. It is not at the point of purchase or manufacture that the Bill should be directed but at the labelling of the goods and their offering for sale and advertising. The original idea, whether it be achieved by an Act of Parliament or by agreement, was that this was the right way to put it.

More recently, my right hon. Friend has put down an Amendment which has been subscribed to by the sponsor of the Bill. We have now come to a more modest figure of £400 as a fine on summary conviction. But it would be completely inappropriate to have imprisonment for an offence of this type. Imprisonment was in the original proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, but it has since been withdrawn and has not been recreated. Two years' imprisonment would be an impossible time.

I see a great danger. If we are to have the labelling of packages, this may eventually lead to the labelling of food. One of the principal dangers to health is obesity. If people eat too much they get too fat—and these people die in enormous numbers every year. If they drink too much they are well on the road to becoming alcoholics. That is a danger. On a bottle of whisky we may have some


form of warning. Therefore, when dealing with offences and penalties, I am careful at this stage about recommending them because it may be that the planners of the Labour Party may later suggest that this should be introduced.

The Government are right in their suggestions and in making arrangements, if we are to have legislation on this matter, to keep the penalties very low and to rule out the possibility of imprisonment.

Finally, in support of tobacco smokers—and I am one—I wish to indicate that the Government are right in giving the cigarette smoker an opportunity to change to the better form of smoking, cigars and pipes, with a warning that they should not inhale.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What do the Government propose to do about this matter? If they want people to swing to smoking pipe tobacco and cigars, they ought to adjust the tax to make it higher on cigarettes and lower on pipe tobacco and cigars. That is the only effective way to achieve the object.

Mr. Skeet: This has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend. He said:
But at the end of the day, the only sensible thing to do is to give up cigarettes, if one humanly can, and, if one cannot, to switch to pipes or, if one can afford them, to cigars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1971; Vol. 815/816, c. 1586.]
It is entirely up to the Government to suggest whether they will adjust the tax to try to ease the transition. They should do that.
We have a very clear view from Professor Hammond, who is very distinguished, in a report produced in 1966 in the United States:
Pipe smoking seems to do little or no harm to the average pipe smoker.
Professors Doll and Hill say:
Differences (in death rates) between nonsmokers and pipe or cigar smokers are not significant.
The best quotation is from the United States Surgeon-General:
Death rates are about the same as those of non-smokers for men smoking less than five cigars daily. Death rates for current pipe smokers were little, if at all, higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 or more pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years.

I come to the Royal College of Physicians Report which says:
Men who were smoking only pipes and cigars have a risk of dying almost exactly the same as that of non-smokers.
There may be a lot of reading between the lines. We are here seeking to interfere with the freedom of the individual and we are trying to persuade the individual, either by legislation or by voluntary means, through advertising, not to subscribe to smoking cigarettes and to move from one form to another which we regard as less harmful. We wish to get them into the second stage, when ultimately we shall have a society in which many people will say that smoking is not the thing to do. It will then be a rare habit. Those people who get satisfaction from smoking a pipe should not be completely dissuaded at once.
I have endeavoured to put the views into perspective. The highest authorities in the land, and in various other States, have made the suggestion that smoking pipes and cigars is relatively harmless and that this, therefore, can be pursued.
I commend my hon. Friend for introducing legislation and for thinking up the idea. He deserves commendation for that. But he is wrong, for the reasons I have stated. Voluntary agreement with firms is likely to be honoured because it is in their interests to honour it. It does not preclude the Government from bringing in legislation later if they consider that desirable. We should be wrong to go ahead with this legislation today.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In a previous incarnation, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was the Member for Willesden, East, the other half of my borough. In those days we followed each other not only in the House but around London. He will forgive me if I say that I prefer his ideas about New Zealand and the Common Market to most of his ideas on this Clause. I am pleased that he supports the discussions we had during which I was able to have inserted in Committee, the Clause dealing with vending machines.
I am sorry to find that he is not prepared to grasp the nettle of what the Bill of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is all about. The crux of the Bill is that we are seeking to lessen sales. Therefore, when he talks about the impossibility for tobacco


manufacturers to denigrate their own products, that is precisely why legislation is necessary. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point that it is difficult to get people who have to sell their products to denigrate them.
Another point to which he referred in last week's debate dealt with a Schedule and a Clause which will be eliminated if some of the Amendments we are discussing are passed. I refer to the five hints to smokers to lessen health risks, and I successfully had Clause 2 and Schedule 2 inserted during the Committee stage.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should have more inquiries before we move further. We have had 20 years in which to have those inquiries and it is now too late. We must now have action. Therefore, like many other hon. Members I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South and for the efforts that have been made by the Department of Health. My only regret is that both of those efforts are still totally inadequate.
Finally, I welcome the help of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) in the efforts which I have been making for four years, directed at Chancellors of the Exchequer from both sides of the House, towards a differential tax between cigars and pipe tobacco, on the one hand, and cigarettes on the other. If I could make cigars ten a penny and cigarettes £1 each, I should be delighted. I am not opposed to smoking. I am concerned only with health and with the tragedies that occur as a result of smoking.
2.30 p.m.
I must apologise for not having been in my place on the previous two Fridays. I apologise especially to those hon. Members present today with whom I endured the arduous and long Committee stage which led to the formulation of this Clause. I also apologise to the Under-Secretary of State. I was attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Venezuela and other concerns in America, where my attention was devoted to other no less important matters.
It had been my hope, following the unanimity expressed in Committee, after the Under-Secretary stopped blocking the Bill, that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South would succeed in getting his Bill after only one Sitting on Report. However, since this Clause was first in-

troduced, there has been a retreat, and I regret it very much. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that he appeared several times to be on the point of talking out his own Bill. All too often, he rose to the bait offered by his opponents.
The Bill has a serious aim. However, from time to time it has been hampered by the flamboyant and extrovert way in which the hon. Gentleman has sought to make his points. I accept his sincerity. He has shown great tenacity. I wish only that his tactics had been a little more effective, as they would have been had he not risen so often to address the world at large or the public and the Press. I regret also that he was prepared to withdraw so much that we had agreed upon in Committee when pressure was applied by the Minister.
I must pay tribute to the Secretary of State. Undoubtedly he is one of the toughest cookies on the Front Bench opposite amidst so many colleagues who are half-baked. When the right hon. Gentleman supported the new Clause and told us what he had ben able to achieve in his negotiations with the tobacco interests, he clearly has done his best to secure the maximum agreement for the implementation of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians. Nevertheless, what he got was the minimum. I welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's statement about matters on the periphery of the Clause and other proposals which are in the pipeline. I hope that they will be effective.
After reading the debates which took place on the previous two Fridays, I was obliged to table a further new Clause banning advertisements altogether. Unfortunately, that will not be reached today. But I reached the conclusion that we cannot tinker about with this problem any longer. Although we must accept this Clause—we have no option—there is no doubt that it does not go far enough and that it would be more effective if we could get to the root of the advertising problem, which neither the Clause nor the Bill does in its present form.
I think one thing the Secretary of State said on 23rd April reflects the view of most of hon. Members present today. Our task is to make smoking socially unacceptable. That has been part of our endeavours in the last few months.


In this connection, it is interesting to note that the World Health Organisation has now banned smoking in any form during all its deliberations. However, it was able to do so quite easily since, for a long time, smoking has been prohibited in meetings of its General Assembly. The reason was that in that Chamber there is a very luxurious and expensive carpet, and there is some danger of tobacco smoke damaging it. It is a rather sad reflection that even a health authority has been prepared to take action to protect its carpet a long time before taking action to protect the lungs of its delegates.
Having read the contributions by the Secretary of State to our debates, clearly I accept his sincerity in trying to balance the weight of £52 million of argument on the one side against the £100,000 at the most on the other by proposing to launch a television campaign. But does the right hon. Gentleman intend to try to achieve any kind of balance between the pressures of persuasion to smoke and those of health education not to smoke? The short answer is that all the proposals that he outlined in his speech show that it will be a limited and finite campaign to which a limited and finite amount of money will be devoted. There will be a short television effort, after which the sales of cigarette companies will rise, as they always do after each of the efforts of those wishing to save lives has terminated.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, if people are not able to be deterred from smoking, we should seek some means of ensuring that those who smoke do it in a way which minimises the risk to their health. Research documents in this country, in Canada, in America and elsewhere show that the five hints contained in Schedule 2 can save lives. If this proposal were adopted, the smoker buying a packet of cigarettes would be in possession of five hints to ways in which he might lessen the injury to his health.

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate that the five tips are extremely useful. However, after a smoker has seen them for the first time, he throws them away. In the United Kingdom at present, 90 per cent. of people realise the dangers of smoking.

It seems pointless to underline them again if smokers are not influenced by them.

Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman's mind is rather static. He seems to think that future smokers will be confined to those who smoke at present. We have been trying to deter young people from starting the habit. The hon. Gentleman suggests that constant reiteration of the dangers is pointless. However, reiteration in advertising has been shown to be extremely successful. A large number of youngsters smoking for the first time at least will see that, if they smoke in a certain way, it is likely to be less harmful than if they smoke in other ways, and this at a time when habit is being formed. The proposal is an extremely constructive one, and I am sorry that this Amendment seeks to delete it.
I recognise the intellectual capacity of the Secretary of State and his determination to achieve his wishes so long as he remains in his present post. Unfortunately, when the Government realise the potential of a good Minister of Health, they are inclined to promote him. However, should he remain in his present post, he has promised that by 1972, if the voluntary agreement has failed, he will accept that it has not sufficient teeth and is rather a gummy affair and will then provide it with a solid set of dentures.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am on the hon. Gentleman's side entirely. But how are we to judge whether this flabby, flacid voluntary agreement is successful a year from now? Are we to do it on the basis of the number of cigarettes consumed or the amount of money spent on advertising?

Mr. Pavitt: I suggest on three bases; first, the fact that by then there will have been another 1,000 deaths from carcinoma of the lung; secondly, the increasing amount of money spent on advertising tobacco products; thirdly, the increased sales of cigarettes.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summer-skill), who made an extremely forthright speech last week. My hon. Friend talked about the difficulty of reaching agreement. A former Minister, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, reached agreement with the tobacco people in 1966, but the agreement was broken after six months


when competition between brand names became too expensive and, as a result, the agreement broke down. Our concern at not having legislation and having agreement rest partly on the fact that although it is possible to have an agreement, if after a time other pressures and reasons develop, it is quite possible for the agreement to finish.
I wish also to say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South for having had recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT one of the finest speeches on this subject that we have ever heard upstairs, that of his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). He was able to get that speech from upstairs into HANSARD downstairs. Like the hon. Member, I would make that speech compulsory reading in this debate.
My last point arising from the points which have been made earlier is that the excellent contribution by a former Minister of Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), needs rereading, not only in the light of his experience when he was Minister of Health, but also because of the unequivocal way in which he came down on the side of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South against voluntary agreement and in favour of a legally enforceable agreement backed by laws passed by Parliament. Nobody in the House knows more about law than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, I take with great care any advice that he tenders to the House.
Whether we pass or reject the Clause, we must not forget the size of the problem. Once again, I remind hon. Members of the Annual Report of the Department of Health, in which Sir George Godber puts on record the 80,000 premature deaths, the 190,000 man-years of working life lost, and from bronchitis alone the 38·5 million days lost to production. That, on one illness alone is nearly three-and-a-half times more than was lost by the unacceptable level of strikes that the country had last year.
To put it another way, if we had the misfortune for this one section of preventable diseases due to smoking to hit this House, namely, lung cancer, in eight days the whole membership of 630 could be wiped out. If two of the coaches which at this time of year bring visitors to see

the House of Commons were to collide outside in Parliament Square and 80 people were to be killed, that would hit every headline in the country. If it happened a second day, no Government could resist the pressure for action. That, however, is the rate of death from lung cancer alone that occurs day after day. We are trying, nevertheless, to balance the books and to say that this is only one of the factors in so many commercial and other considerations with which we are trying to deal.
Another important reason why action should not be delayed and legislation should be passed is the changing pattern of the cancers. I refer in particular to the frightening rise during the last seven years in the number of deaths among females from cancer of the lung. Research has shown us the reason. These are the 1939 to 1945 crop, because in wartime women were engaged in war work and in the Forces and their smoking habits followed those of the men.
2.45 p.m.
We have other evidence, too, from the tremendous survey made after the impact of the Report of the Surgeon-General in the United States had effect. United States surveys show that the impact on men has meant that the number of cigarettes smoked in every age category has gone down. What has happened among females, however, is that in the 45 to 54 age group there has been an increase of from 26 to 36 per cent. and in the 55 to 64 age group an increase of from 13 to 24 per cent. Therefore, when I tell the House that by the late 1970s this will reach epidemic proportions I am not starting scares or frights. Once one starts to balance the number of deaths at present occurring among males with those of females, one reaches frightening and epidemic proportions.
I am very pleased to see the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East is now present. I am sorry that he missed my reference to him, but, no doubt, he will be kind enough to read my thanks to him when he reads this debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
One of the most distressing things that can arise from smoking is not lung cancer. It is not even the tremendous number of deaths. There is no hon. Member who does not know of somebody near


and dear who has had coronary thrombosis. All those who have read the reports of the Medical Research Council and the Tobacco Research Council will be aware of the tremendous influence of smoking on coronary thrombosis.
I was privileged to be a member of the Central Middlesex Hospital Management Committee. One of the country's outstanding cardio-thoracic physicians, Keith Ball, is our consultant. I was able to go on a ward round with him. He told me that half a million children now at school would die prematurely through smoking and that smoking daily fills 7,000 National Health Service beds which would not be filled if it were not for the smoking habit. That kind of factor is important. That costs public expenditure.
What frightened me, however, was to see for myself the patients in a chest ward. I invite hon. Members—who are obviously interested in this subject, otherwise they would not be here on a Friday —to walk round the chest ward of their local hospital and see these things. The hon. Member for Bedford accepted my invitation last time I was debating this subject, when he was in another incarnation, and he also visited Central Middlesex Hospital. One sees what appear to be cheerful men in their 50s, but as one leaves their bedside the consultant says, "I think he will have a fortnight, or, possibly, three weeks."
What is even more frightening to the layman—the House knows that although I interest myself in health matters, I am not a doctor—is to see the elderly fighting and struggling with emphysema for every breath. That is the kind of tragedy that nobody likes to see twice. That is what we are talking about in the Clause. That is what we are trying to fight for on the Floor of the House. I therefore ask hon. Members to take these factors into consideration.
In the course of the debate, both upstairs and on the last two Fridays in the House, we have had to take account of the side effects. We have to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), for instance, regards as the very human problems that would be involved if a real impact were made on this problem. I remember Percy Belcher, the late Secre-

tary of the Tobacco Workers' Union, making an impassioned speech at the T.U.C. to prevent any action being taken which might lead to unemployment among his members. One understands that. As has been pointed out time and time again, the Revenue has an interest because public expenditure needs the £1,000 million which tobacco duty yields. There are, therefore, a number of side effects which have to be weighed.
The Secretary of State has had to try to weigh all these things and to compromise. He has sought to get from the tobacco industry as much as he could. They have sought to defend their interests as much as they could. What came out of it was useful but inadequate. That is why the House—although the likelihood now is that the Bill will not reach the Statute Book this year, but I think that eventually it will—needs to legislate, so that the level of agreement can be pitched much higher in the light of the health hazards that we face.
On the question of costing, the only country I know which has done an analysis of the financial costs is Canada. This is an extremely interesting report which I hope hon. Gentlemen will read. It shows that at the moment in terms of its budget the cost of smoking runs to £387 million. I am confident that we are spending a very large proportion of the £1,000 million we get in revenue on dealing with diseases due to smoking but the problem with the Treasury is that we know that any action taken will not have any effect for another 10 or 15 years in terms of reducing health costs, whereas if the action taken is effective and cigarettes cease to be smoked the Excise duty drop will have an immediate effect upon the Budget.
Unfortunately in the political world people are more inclined to look at the immediate effect than at the long-term advantages of legislation. The British Medical Journal in its leader talked about cowardice over smoking and that charge can be rightly levelled at the Government. It says:
With a justified sense of Deja Vu doctors might be forgiven for asking whether the Government will still be shilly-shallying in 1981.
I do not think that they will. I think events will force them to act before that. It is a tragedy that this should happen


when we could get legislation now, when there is this pressure from the back benches and when all that we shall get will be this weak agreement and nothing more.
The Minister may unintentionally have misled the House. This Amendment seeks to restore the original wording of the Bill in place of the wording in the new Clause. It hinges upon two small points, whether it can cause danger or whether it is harmful to health. There is no doubt that it is harmful to health. The degree of harmfulness is a different proposition. The fact that the harm to health exists does not mean that a person will die. Physiological research has shown that many changes in the body that occur after one or two puffs of a cigarette. The heart-beat, blood pressure and the reactions of the body are all affected with the first intake of nicotine. Because it is harmful does not necessarily mean that it is a killer. It may not send someone to a hospital ward, but the fact remains that human bodily functions are impaired. Amendment (c) is undoubtedly preferable. It is the wording agree by the doctors, and accepted by the Royal College of Physicians.
There has been some discussion about the application of tobacco substitutes. I have had an assurance from the present Chancellor that he will follow the undertaking given by the previous Chancellor that he will meet me for discussion about the time when tobacco substitutes become a viable proposition. The House knows that I.C.I., working with Imperial Tobacco and Courtaulds, have made substantial progress in this area. The result cannot yet be given because clinical testing takes a long time. The Medical Research Council has a number of projects in hand. There are four grants to aid examination of the substances and a complete medical research unit at work. In addition, a committee of professors dealing with chronic bronchitis has the matter under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, in a stirring speech last week, referred in one of her more colourful phrases to the "faceless moguls". I do not want to stir that problem up again but I have not found them to be faceless. I recall that when the first report came out I had a meeting in this House of the Labour Party Health Group attended by Lord

Platt and the then chairman of Imperial Tobacco, Mr. John Partridge, now chairman of the C.B.I. The problem is not so much the faceless moguls, it is that no one in the tobacco industry ever tries to refute or contradict the medical evidence.
I pay tribute to the Tobacco Research Council whose first Report underlined the health hazards involved in smoking. What has taken place is a sophisticated piece of ju-jitsu. It is not opposed; just enough doubt is cast so that in the event the matter is not resolved. So, 20 years after the 1951 Report, the area of doubt is sufficient to make hon. Members discussing this Clause doubt whether they can give it their vote.

Mr. Kilfedder: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the tobacco industry has contributed substantial sums of money to the scientific investigation of the link between smoking tobacco and health? This seems to be some indication of the concern felt by the industry. It seems that it does not wish to cast doubt, it wants to get at the facts; and some credit ought to be given for that. I know that the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) described these people as "faceless moguls" but they are not the sort of people that those who oppose smoking often make them out to be.

Mr. Pavitt: The House will recall that I have tried to introduce a Bill similar to this since 1964. On each occasion that I have tried to do so I have paid tribute to the industry. The tobacco people know my position. Every time I want to go to Harrogate they are prepared to fly me there and Gallaher was prepared to take me to Geneva for two days to see what was being done there in tobacco and smoking research. The hon. Gentleman must realise at the same time, that the first tobacco company that produces a carcinoma-free cigarette hits the jackpot, so that not only is there a certain amount of public interest involved, but there is also some good commercial commonsense involved in conducting research.
The present Clause fails to deal with the gift coupon problem. The greatest opposition to this Bill since it reached the Floor of the House has not come from the tobacco manufacturers. There is £15½ million worth of advertising revenue at stake. I have seen an interesting document put out by some advertising people


in which they are kind enough to commend me for my interest in research. If I may give a word of advice about this brief, it is far too complex and big. If I were an advertising man I would suggest that next time they publish far less material.
What the series of Amendments does not tackle is the way in which after both the Royal College of Physicians Report and the Report of the Surgeon-General of America in 1964, the trend to smoke less was defeated by the introduction of gift coupons. I have a new Clause, which we are not discussing now, which I hope to incorporate in a further Bill. As a result of the public awareness of the health hazards, in 1964 there was a drop in cigarette smoking of 0·7 per cent. and in 1965 there was a drop of 2·1 per cent. Those were the only two years in which there was a drop in sales of cigarettes in this century.
3.0 p.m.
In January, 1966, Players No. 6 was launched. Within three months it was the second largest seller of all tobacco products. By 1967, 67·1 per cent. of the total cigarettes sold were coupon brands. We are very much indebted to Gallahers, to whom I pay tribute, for its research into the matter. When I had the pleasure of entertaining Mr. W. F. J. Carter, the deputy chairman of Imperial Tobacco, to lunch here, I was able to give him a copy of the results so that Imperial Tobacco would be aware of the case against coupon promotion. Unfortunately, I was not able to convince Imperial Tobacco that coupons were not a good thing. I have been assured that the use of coupons makes no difference, to the manufacturers' promotion expenditure, because all that happens is that 2½d. is put on the price of the packet, and if coupons were not given that amount would come off. Therefore, the gifts are paid for not by the tobacco interests but by the consumers. That being so, why not abolish them?
It is interesting to see the way in which the tobacco interests can make separate compartments of their merchandising departments and their research. Incidentally, I see that the Secretary of State is here now. I am sorry that he was not here to hear my comments on his

speech, but I am sure that he will read them with great interest. On the one hand there is an attempt among the tobacco companies to reach agreement on health matters and on the other there is the way in which the marketing is conducted. Lord Platt in another place talked about the link of virility and sex with advertising, and the advertisers' aiming for the younger market. Gallaher and Carreras were prepared to ban gift coupons in 1966, if only Imperial Tobacco had agreed. It is only because it was not possible to get agreement across the board that we have seen the tremendous increase, in coupon marketing. In one merchandising operation Gallaher produced a film called "Gallaher Love Story", telling the story of the grocer and the average housewife, with her love for shopping, and the way in which Gallaher can help to cement a happier and more profitable relationship between the two.
An increase in duty can boost the sales of the market leaders. It was always assumed that cigarette sales would drop when extra duty was imposed, but when the duty was increased in 1967 all that happened was that one brand from Players dominated the 4s. section of the market.
The crunch question is whether the Clause and the Amendments will be effective in diminishing the amount of cigarettes smoked. If they do, they will reduce the health hazards resulting from cigarettes. What the Secretary of State has had to try to negotiate is somehing which will give the semblance of an impact on sales, the semblance of deterring people from smoking, but will do neither. I predict that within five months we shall be back to precisely the same consumption.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the printing of the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes on the packets and having a league table in each tobacco shop. The tobacco industry would be only too pleased to do this, and I do not think that the advertising interests would be very worried, because it opens up a new bonanza for advertising. On my recent visit to the United States I saw that one of the effects of quantifying the chemical content of cigarettes is to provide a vast new field of advertising material. The advertising men can say then, "Smoke brand X, because it


contains less tar, and therefore your health is safer." The advertising man and the tobacco companies see no deterrent to smoking in this. In spite of this, it is a very good provision, because if smokers have a right to choose how they will smoke to diminish health hazards, they also have the right to know which brands to smoke to limit the amount of chemicals they are likely to absorb.
A lot of work has gone into the Bill, not least by an hon. Member sitting upstairs. We have had much discussion with doctors and the Royal College of Physicians, and here I particularly pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, Lord Platt, and to Dr. Charles Fletcher for their willingness always to come to my aid. But we have got past the time when we can look at this subject as just one among many.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he has got past the time. He has. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) of wanting to talk out his Bill. The hon. Gentleman is now in danger of talking it out.

Mr. Pavitt: That is why I was about to conclude. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has now delayed my conclusion. I am sorry to have spoken at length but I remind the hon. Gentleman that in Committee, about half the Amendments put down were in my name and that many of the Amendments on Report have been tabled by me.
We are relying upon the Secretary of State not only to give spirit to this agree-bent, whatever happens to the Bill, but also to ensure the follow-through, because subsidiary matters must have effect no later than January next year if they are to have any credibility. We, in Parliament, must be prepared to take the responsibility of making unpopular decisions. It is not fair to ask the public or the tobacco manufacturers or the shareholders or the trade unions or anyone else affected by regulations to take these unpleasant decisions themselves. That is our responsibility and it is time we took it.

Mr. David Crouch: The House always listens with great interest to what the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) says about matters

concerning health, particularly, as it were, the consumers. He has a great and continuing interest in the subject. But I am sorry that he chose to go on a delegation to Venezuela and miss two days of this debate. Whilst he made a great contribution in Committee upstairs, we would have benefited on Report if we could have heard him at the outset, since the debate on Report has not on occasion reached the heights which his speech has just reached. I do not agree with all his conclusions but I share his concern about the health of consumers in this matter.
It is right that we should be concerned about the problem of smoking and the damage it can do to health. We are also indebted to those hon. Members—I think that there are now 12 of them—who are members of the medical profession. I do not know whether we are going to find a description for them. Lawyers have benefited for years by the description, "honourable and learned"—and so they are. Perhaps we will have to find a description for medical Members. One can only respect the contributions they have made but I would particularly single out my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). I also respect the information I have had from publications by the Royal College of Physicians and in the utterances of the British Medical Journal and others. I was a cigarette smoker, but gave up smoking at Christmas because of the impact of this information.
What we are considering is not so much the question of danger to health—I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that there is a danger—but rather how best to help a free society face and meet this problem. Whilst I respect the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and his energy and tenacity in bringing in the Bill, after much reflection I do not feel that this is a matter which, if we can avoid it, should be the subject of legislation, rules, regulations and controls. That is not to say that I do not believe that there are many instances when consumer protection against exploitation or the consumers' protection of his or her health may require Government statutory rules and regulations. There are many occasions when they are necessary, and I could cite many such examples.
Equally, I could cite examples when we should not seek, as the phrase is, to wet nurse the consumer like a grandmother about everything that is ultimately a matter of choice and the responsibility of the individual. The doctors themselves have already set us an example. Between 1951 and 1965, no fewer than 50 per cent. of all doctors in Britain who were smokers gave up smoking. The doctors have begun to set an example not because of an edict from the Secretary of State, or because of a Resolution of the House, but because they were reading and taking note of the reports and taking action themselves voluntarily. I should like particularly parents and young people to deal with the problem voluntarily, and I should like the House of Commons, after great reflection on the difficulties facing us in a free society, to consider whether we cannot give the nation a chance to hear the serious arguments against cigarette smoking so that people may decide for themselves.
The country is very lucky to have a person like my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State for the Social Services. He is a person of great sincerity—a word I have used already—and is himself greatly concerned about problems of this sort. I have not discussed it with him, but I am sure that he did not reach this decision lightly and that he did not think that a voluntary agreement was the only way. I am sure that he has looked at both sides of the question. His advice, which I accept, is that the best solution for the country is to see whether, by voluntary arrangement with the cigarette manufacturers, we can get their full co-operation and warn the public, by warnings on cigarette packs and in advertising, of the dangers of smoking, to warn the public by a vigorous campaign on television and in other ways.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I agree with him, that it is better to have a voluntary agreement than an ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and badly drafted Bill and that a voluntary agreement between the companies and the Government is infinitely preferable to any kind of legislation. Is that the point the hon. Gentleman is making?

Mr. Crouch: That is the point I am making; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has introduced the Bill which has returned to the House as a bad Bill, as a hotch-potch of half-considered solutions to problems and of ill-defined conditions and restrictions. I have no hesitation in saying that we cannot accept it as it is, and that I infinitely prefer the strong and voluntary measures which my right hon. Friend is recommending.
I should like to continue with some of the other aspects of the warning to the public which my right hon. Friend is suggesting. It is not only the warning on the cigarette pack or in the advertising, but the warning by means of an intensive campaign by the Health Education Council, the present expenditure of which on the dangers from cigarette smoking is only £100,000, which is nothing like enough. I should like my right hon. Friend to consult the advertising industry about the size of the expenditure necessary for a campaign to have the necessary effect and to back up his declared intention.
3.15 p.m.
In addition, my right hon. Friend offered on behalf of the Government to publish a league table of statistical analyses of tar and nicotine content, naming the brands. This is education of the public. It is a warning to the members so that they can say, "It seems that there is something in this. The doctors are giving up smoking, and the House of Commons is so concerned about the matter that it had three days of debate. Now we begin to see which are the safest cigarettes." This is a positive contribution, and a very important concomitant to the voluntary arrangement.
The manufacturers have been prepared to accept two restrictions on their sales effort. First, there is the restriction on television campaigns, a most potent form of advertising for this type of immediate purchase. This is virtually a campaign to restrict the purchase of cigarettes. They have also agreed to publish every six months these league tables of such telling facts.
But we are dealing with a very delicate problem. I have referred to my right hon. Friend being obviously very much worked up about the decision he should recommend. He made a statement in the House about the voluntary agreement and, in answer to one of my hon. Friends on the subject of sweet eating, he said off the cuff that in the case of cigarette smoking we were dealing with death. He did not mince his words. We all have to face the thought that my right hon. Friend left with us then, and the thought that many other hon. Members have left with us.
I do not think that we need legislation, certainly not at this stage. I was criticised only last week for using a phrase about a gentleman's agreement. I know that the lawyers feel that a gentleman's agreement has no place in law, but it has a place in the House of Commons and in the minds of people, and it has a place as between Government and leaders of industry. I could cite many examples of Government seeking voluntary arrangements with industry. In the operation of the Health Service—in the medical practitioner service and the hospital service—there is a voluntary agreement on drug prices between the Government and the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and if the manufacturers break that voluntary agreement a very big stick comes into play. The Department has to see all the figures so that it may determine that the pharmaceutical industry is keeping its word about the promotion of sales of pharmaceuticals—

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) advocates the worth of a gentleman's agreement between Government and leaders of industry. Is he similarly advocating the worth of a gentleman's agreement between Government and trade unions?

Mr. Crouch: Yes. It may surprise the hon. Lady to know that I agreed with her right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in her contention from this side that we should have legislation of that kind. Before that, I had been one of the reluctant members who would have liked to see harmony in industry by means of which trade unions and employers could seek to achieve without legislation the goals

that we think are practicable. It was because we have reached an impasse that I have, after a great deal of thought, favoured the need for a legislative structure. Voluntary arrangements did not work satisfactorily in the first place.
In the early part of 1968, as a member of the Opposition, I played a considerable part, in Standing Committee and in the Chamber, in the proceedings on the Trade Descriptions Bill. During the discussions on that Bill we pointed out many times the need for informing the consumer at the point of sale about the specific contents of products so that he could be better informed. The Act also refers to the need for advising the consumer on aspects of health and safety. This is a valuable contribution to our law.
There is a need for education and for moderation in the manner in which cigarettes are promoted by the manufacturers to the public. There is already a voluntary agreement about the manner in which they are advertised. The Government must continue to watch, and ask the advertising industry to watch, the manner in which the advertising of cigarettes is conducted. There has been some criticism that some of the advertising has not been sufficiently close to the agreement about promoting one brand against another. While I should not like the Government to be the watchdog in this matter, the House of Commons could be a watchdog.
In the advertising industry there are two non-statutory bodies—one for television, which does not fit this case as there is no advertising of cigarettes on television, and the Advertising Standards Authority, a voluntary body which watches over the content of all advertising before it appears. I hope that it will be warned to ensure that the advertising abides by those limits and moderation for which we have asked.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion, but I am not sure whether it is practicable. How can the advertising industry so organise itself that it becomes judge in its own court? It is handling advertisements through all the media. If a cigarette is advertised, as many of them are, with the statement, "The finest quality cigarette", will it be said that, because


of the kind of report which we have had from medical people, such a slogan should not be used? I do not see how the advertising industry can come into this matter. It must be a matter of the self-restraint of the manufacturers rather than for the advertisers.

Mr. Crouch: It is not a question of the industry acting as its own judge and jury. The industry, through the Advertising Standards Authority, has a committee composed of some people in the industry and many who are not in the industry. For example, there are a number of doctors on some of the sub-committees of the Authority who consider the health aspects of certain products. It is not for them to say whether a certain phrase is right. Two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South thought that there was sex symbolism in some cigarette advertising. That is the sort of thing which the Advertising Standards Authority can consider and ensure that suggestions about the advantages of smoking are removed from advertising.
There is also a need for choice. I emphasise what many speakers have said, namely, that there is medical evidence, in this country and particularly in America, to prove that if it is difficult to persuade people to give up cigarette smoking because of addiction to the habit, we are halfway to the objective of persuading them to give it up if we can offer them some form of smoking which is less dangerous, and is proven to be less dangerous, to health. I am referring to pipe smoking and cigars.
In the Bill as drafted—and I am not sure how it is drafted now in view of all the Amendments proposed to it—pipe smoking and cigars were bracketted as being as dangerous as cigarettes. This would be a pity, because it is a let-out for the person who can be persuaded by the warnings and the education to give up cigarette smoking for something less harmful.
It would be wrong for us to suppose that by education we mean to frighten. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South has often used in his speeches about the Bill a phrase about his intention about the warning on the pack that the warning to the public

should be lurid. The warning put forward to us by my right hon. Friend is much more sensible, because it does not go out to frighten. The phrase is a much more sober one, a less lurid phrase.

Sir G. Nabarro: All I want to say to my hon. Friend—to give him a breather—is that I would not like him misleading the House in any way, and that I did not say "lurid". The phrase which I used over and over again—indeed, I may say with deep humility that I coined the phrase—was "lurid, graphic, and covering one-sixth of the superficial external area of the container".

Mr. Crouch: I have not heard my hon. Friend speak from behind me instead of, as is usual, in front. It is a little disturbing to find my hon. Friend popping up in all quarters of the House.
I honestly do not believe that the tobacco industry is fighting the Government on this issue. Of course, it is fighting for something. It is fighting to stay in business. It is fighting to try to overcome the danger which its product produces, but I do not think it is fighting the Government on this. I think it is really intent on matching the Government's intention to find a warning to the public of the danger from the product and to help in every way; the industry recognises the problems caused by the misuse of its product and wants to co-operate with the public and the Government to improve public health, and it is prepared to accept limitations on how it sells cigarettes.
Let us get in perspective what it is we are talking about. It is the human habit of smoking, one to which a great many people are addicted. We are not talking about something much more serious such as the sale or purchase of firearms or of drugs or of aphrodisiacs. We are talking about something hitherto thought to be a natural, social pattern of behaviour, and it is the Government who have begun to change that pattern.
I do not regard smoking as harmful in all or any circumstances whatever. Although I have given up cigarettes I still smoke cigars. While I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Willesden, West, and I know he would like us to succeed in stopping everyone from smoking—if possible, I


should like that, too—I think it is very wrong in any way to force them to do so. There are certainly some occasions on which people feel rather the better for a smoke. I remember that I myself in certain moments of strain or minor strain have reached for a cigarette. On occasion, I confess, having waited a long time to speak in this Chamber, and not having been called, I have left it for a smoke or a drink. It is a platitude to say, "Moderation in all things", but moderation there should be. I must confess that I have found that I can make a better speech if I have one whisky and soda. I certainly do not make a better speech by having two.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It depends on the hour.

Mr. Crouch: Yes, it depends on the hour. Indeed, late at night, or 10 o'clock, I have been advised by the Whips to go and "have a large one", after I have been sitting here waiting to speak and have been disappointed. Perhaps that was good advice.
The Royal College of Physicians in its excellent book recommends certain steps towards changing people's behaviour patterns and advises them to smoke less and not to inhale. In fact, the book gives five sensible pieces of advice in regard to moderation by smokers.
I have probably already spoken for too long, though I have not as yet sensed any feeling in the House that I have been too lengthy, but I have had a strong note from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, who is now in front of me, that he would like to have an opportunity to say a word or two before we end the day.

Sir G. Nabarro: That was not the purpose of the note. The purpose was to enable one or two of the three doctors now present in the House, two of whom are sponsors of the Bill, to say a few words on the Bill.

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend knows that I have already paid my respects to those hon. and hippocratic friends and I certainly would like to see them come in on this debate.
I conclude by saying that I regard the Bill as something of a hotch-potch. I

believe that a voluntary arrangement would be preferable. I believe that such an arrangement would work and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would watch to see that it did work and is conscious that he wishes to serve the interests of the House and of the whole country to that end. I feel that the Bill would be out of character in a parliamentary sense if it stays as it is. I should like to see Parliament offer a solution to the problem by a voluntary method and I wish that voluntary method success.

3.30 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: As one of the medical sponsors of the Bill, I have listened with interest to all the arguments I had expected today to be talking about the medical aspects, but I feel that I should be "flogging a dead horse" since it is clear from the discussion we have had that there is no argument in the House on the medical dangers involved.

Mr. Michael Fidler: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that somebody who may not be able to stop smoking might not take that view. Has he heard about the gentleman who was so upset by reading all about smoking and its link with lung cancer that he decided to give up reading? Would he apply his mind to the advantages that some smokers see in the habit in which they indulge and the fact that, in some people's minds, conclusive evidence has not yet been produced?

Dr. Vaughan: We would all agree that cigarette smokers are susceptible to dangers, but there is a very much wider issue of social significance. Underlying the question whether cigarettes should be labelled, there is the great problem of what a community should do when, for many years, it has been accustomed to take up something which is a very great social comfort. We must admit that it is a means of breaking down social barriers and gives cigarettes a certain status. It is rather sad that advertising tries to cash in on this element.
Cigarette smoking is also a powerful stimulus; it helps jaded and tired minds. We all know that a great many people are not only dependent on smoking but are seriously addicted to it. Therefore, however strong minded they may be, if


they try to stop smoking they face not only social difficulties but also difficult symptoms of withdrawal. One cannot say how difficult this is unless one has actually experienced it.
I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and I followed its researches with a great deal of interest and care. We have already heard that doctors led in this matter by giving up or reducing smoking among themselves and turned to pipes and cigars, which we still think are probably safer. I remember the dismay in the medical profession at the results of the study that was done on ourselves, and we discovered how many of our number had died during the five years of the study. When I was a house surgeon working in a chest unit I was dismayed by the large number of people who faced a horrific and terrible death. This has stayed as a lasting impression on my mind.
The problem is, what does the community do? Society is not ready to stop smoking altogether. I accept all the recommendations of the Royal College and I do not think they go too far, as many people have suggested. I have many points on this which I intended to bring up today but which I will keep for the Bill which is to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I accept the observations which have been made, but I do not think that society is yet ready to stop smoking altogether.
Some time ago I laid a motion before the London County Council which was intended to reduce the licensing of cinemas and places where people could smoke in public. We were there discussing two freedoms, the freedom to smoke and the freedom not to breathe in other people's smoke. That motion was defeated by a small number of votes. When I recently tried to get my colleagues on the Greater London Councvil to support a similar motion it was thrown out unequivocally because people felt that it was an intrusion into their freedom of action. This may be the result of Stansted and the other great defences of freedom we have seen. We all feel that we must be careful to see that our lives are not intruded upon.
We are left with a great educational issue. I have many teenage patients. I

know that they have increased the amount of smoking they do and that they are unaware, despite what has been said here, of the dangers they are running. Those who are aware find it difficult to be concerned about something which could make them ill possibly in 10, 20, or 30 years' time.
I do not accept what the tobacco industry has told me about advertising merely shifting people from one brand to another. Although the total sales may stay the same, advertising shifts smoking from one group of people to another so that, for instance, there has been an increase in the number of women smokers, and in the number of teenage smokers. Teenagers are smoking earlier and in greater quantities. I do not blame them, because it is a status image and helpful to them socially.
I should like to see all advertising stopped. If we are logical about this, we cannot expect people to break off a habit immediately, but we can stop spending millions of £s inviting them to do something which is dangerous.

Mr. Fidler: If my hon. Friend feels that there is conclusive proof that smoking causes cancer, why does he not go the whole way and ask for a complete prohibition on the manufacture and sale of cigarettes? If he were to do that, I would accept his argument.

Dr. Vaughan: I have not made myself plain on this. Society will not obey laws it is not ready to obey. We should be bringing the law into disrepute if we introduced legislation which could not be enforced. We must accept that people are likely to go on smoking. I think we are all agreed that steps must be taken to bring before people the danger of smoking, but not necessarily to prevent them from doing so. For example, it is wrong to use in advertising the theme of racing cars, to suggest that smoking add's to one's virility, that it adds to one's status and is a cool, refreshing, pleasant experience. These things are misplaced, misguided and very irresponsible. Advertising of that kind should stop. I hope that the trade will agree with my right hon. Friend that the committee which watches its advertising should take a much firmer line on matters of this kind.
The time is very late and I am conscious that my hon Friend wishes to have


the last say in this very interesting debate. Whatever happens to the Bill now, it has served a most useful purpose. It has drawn not only our attention but the attention of the country to this problem. The steps which my right hon. Friend and the industry are considering are a very important and useful first stage in the programme that my hon. Friend has in mind.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) met representatives of the Imperial Tobacco Company the other day. We met their medical representative. In fairness to that company, I should say that we were very impressed by the way in which it had seen the writing on the wall and by the sincerity with which its representatives explained to us what they were trying to do in seeking a safer alternative for those addicted to the stimulant side of tobacco-smoking.
As a result of our debates on the last few Fridays, I have great hopes that we shall now see a sincere and genuine move to a programme of education on this subject.

Sir G. Nabarro: It is rare, if not unique, that a private Member has been able to secure almost eight hours of debate on a Private Member's Bill on the Floor of the House of Commons, albeit divided between three Fridays—in spite of a great deal of filibustering in opposition to the Bill, by talking at inordinate length on relatively minor preceding Measures. But I shall not dwell on that because the record will show that those participating in the delaying tactics very substantially represented tobacco and cigarette constituencies and were truly reflecting the apprehensions of large numbers of workers in those constituencies, and for that reason they were advancing very legitimate views in opposition to a Measure which they felt might make a threat to their future employment.
I have no recrimination in regard to the views of my right hon. Friend, and I shall not indulge in any acrimony in this matter. We are entirely at one in seeking progress towards a desirable objective, which is not the total elimination of smoking—which, for all the reasons given over and over again in these debates, is impracticable anyway—but

the securing, by one means or another, of a substantial diminution in the amount of tobacco smoking, with special emphasis on a diminution of the consumption of cigarettes.
I have always taken the view that if we were to legislate at all we should legislate over the whole field. The arguments in favour and against legislating over the whole field, for health warnings against the consumption of tobacco and tobacco products, were debated at great length in Committee and should not be repeated on the Floor of the House, because I accept that my right hon. Friend, in insisting upon legislation, if at all, in the context of cigarettes alone, would be covering approximately 87 per cent. of the whole field of tobacco consumption.
The deep divide between my right hon. Friend and myself may be summarised in these terms. He believes that a voluntary agreement would be efficacious. I do not. In this last ditch that I stand in now, I believe that legislation is imperative. But I have never suggested that legislation is the only effective method of making progress. Those on both sides of the House who have imputed to me all legislative intent to secure my objective are quite wrong. Legislation is only one aspect of a very wide, difficult and complex social and economic problem covering what my right hon. Friend described, in the only words of his which have registered with me at all, as "deep addiction".
3.45 p.m.
I have known my right hon. Friend for 20 years. I have sat with him in the House since 1953, when he first came in. I know him to be a man of honour, integrity and warm friendship, and these are all qualities that I am gratified to enjoy with my right hon. Friend's company in this House. I accept, therefore, that he is trying by his means to make progress towards a very desirable objective.
The most telling point in this long debate on an economic aspect of the matter was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), and it may be summarised in a few words: the cost to the National Health Service. I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, when I introduced the Bill on 15th


December last, the occasion was curious, since it was the beginning of the second day's debate on the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill, and the House was packed—[Interruption.] I got up early in the morning to get that place. If I get up at four o'clock in the morning so that I may be first in the queue, I deserve to succeed.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: The hon. Gentleman's party are in favour of voluntary agreements, not only on industrial relations but on the subject of smoking.

Sir G. Nabarro: I defined closely how the health hazards should be applied.
All Governments confronted with this problem are hesitant if not apprehensive about legislating. There is a well-known story about the late Labour Government which has the ring of truth about it. The Minister of Transport of the day, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), asked all her Ministerial colleagues to be certain to wear seat belts when driving their motor cars. The reply came rapidly from the then Minister of Health, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, "Yes, I will wear my seat belt if you will stop smoking." The right hon. Lady did not stop smoking. History will record elsewhere whether the Minister of Health wore his seat belt in his motor car.
The degree of confusion in the public mind which arises from an anecdote of that kind is to be found in one of the thousands of letters descending on me dealing with the subject of tobacco. About 80 per cent, say that I am a good chap. About 20 per cent. say that I am a "basket". But the degree of confusion is to be found in this message which reached me a few days ago from the Pedestrian Action Committee. It says:
Dear Sir Gerald, We will pack up smoking if you will pack up motoring. Both habits are filthy and anti-social.
Of course, there are varying opinions on this matter. In certain circumstances, motoring is anti-social. I listened to a B.B.C. programme this morning giving reliable evidence of the effects on hospitals and the cost to the National Health Service of crazy driving on our motorways. My right hon. and learned Friend made in much more graphic terms the

point I made shortly on 15th December last on the cost to the National Health Service of the appalling ravages arising from smoking.
This morning, it was reported how discontented the British Medical Association was with the conduct of the National Health Service in present circumstances. There is never enough money for hospitals, clinics or research. There never will be. Yet we are wasting, as near as medical experts can assess, about £100 million a year of the National Health Service Vote in treating chronic diseases arising from cigarette and tobacco consumption.

Mr. Fidler: No.

Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend, who is an opponent of that view—a single voice—has not entered the Chamber during our long debates until a few moments ago.

Mr. Fidler: On a point of order. My hon. Friend must not make that accusation. I have been here throughout this afternoon's discussion, even if my hon. Friend has not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): That is not a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: There is no doubt about the B.M.A. view on what I have been endeavouring to do, with 11 stalwarts of all political parties. The 12 sponsors of the Bill comprise seven Tories, four Labour Members and one Liberal and there are eight laymen and four medical doctors. One of the medical doctors who sponsors the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan)—wound up a few moments ago from the medical point of view. Another of the doctors, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) made the best speech in all the debates, including the Ministerial speeches, in Standing Committee in describing the ravages of cigarette smoking. I hope that that speech is widely circulated as truly the medical case against consumption of tobacco in all its forms.
I quote from the British Medical Journal Supplement of 8th May, 1971—that is tomorrow, but so close am I to the B.M.A. that it sent me an advance copy marked "Confidential", and stamped


eneath the "Confidential" was "Release 7th May", which is today. I quote from page 92 because I want these two passages to be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT as the absolute support of the entire medical profession for what we have been trying to do legislatively in the Bill and the absolute rejection of the voluntary agreement basis. This is what the British Medical Association has printed:
The Secretary of State for Social Services has announced the voluntary agreement of the tobacco manufacturers to print a clear warning on cigarette packets that smoking can damage health. The Council
—the British Medical Council—
insists that such a warning be made a legal obligation which is applied to the retail sale of all manufactured tobacco products".
Two points are there endorsed for the legislative approach. The first is that it must be legally obligatory. The second is that it must apply to all tobacco products, including cigarettes.
The article continues:
…the Association
—that is the British Medical Asso-ciation—
supports legislation which would make it compulsory for all containers of any manufactured tobacco offered for retail sale within the United Kingdom to be labelled in a prominent place on the outside of the container with the following statement:
'Smoking IS harmful to health'.
Those words are enshrined in Amendment (c) and although there will be no vote on the Clause Mr. Speaker has said that there may be a vote, if desired, on the text of the words. I, for myself and the sponsors of the Bill, reject the Ministerial approach to this matter over the warning on the side of the packet. We think that it is bad, insufficient, flabby, innocuous, and we think it unlikely to succeed. The Ministerial words are:
Warning by H.M. Government
Smoking can damage your health.
I seek to substitute the B.M.A. terminology which is:
Smoking IS harmful to health".
On that I think we should vote.
I want to read a letter received by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) from the Secretary of the Rosenheim Committee, Dr. C. M. Fletcher. That is

the committee which produced this admirable report "Smoking and Health Now" a few weeks ago. Dr. Fletcher gives his permission for this letter to be read in the House of Commons. It says:
Dear Sir Brandon,
I write to ask you as my representative in Parliament to vote for the Tobacco and Snuff (Health Hazards) Bill at the Report stage on Friday, April 23rd. This Bill will, in my view, provide much more effective action to deter peope from smoking cigarettes than the rather weak provisions outlined by Sir Keith Joseph. In view of the enormous shortening of life at present caused by cigarette smoking it is of the utmost importance that the Bill should be passed. I greatly hope that you will be able to support it.
Yours, sincerely,
C. M. FLETCHER, C.B.E., M.D., F.R.C.P.
There is no doubt that the whole of medical opinion in Britain is on the side of the sponsors of the Bill and myself.
My right hon. Friend misled the House very gravely last week, no doubt inadvertently, when he alluded to the fact that there were no provisions for advertising or steps against advertising in the Bill. He was responding to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). I made is clear in Committee that the Title of the Bill was drawn wide enough to include a new Clause on Report which would, if necessary, prohibit advertising altogether. Hon. Members will recall my words. I said that there was a new Clause set down to prohibit advertising in the name of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) but that it was not selected.
The reason why it was not selected was a very reasonable one. If we eliminate Clause 3 of the original Bill and substitute new Clause 3, then we provide a limited control of advertising and the hon. Member's Clause would be deemed out of order. I said in Committee, and I repeat now, that it ought to be a decision for the whole House, not for a Standing Committee of 16 members, to decide whether tobacco and cigarette advertising is totally banned.
I conclude by saying that I remain undeterred in my determination to secure legislation in this area. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should not grin at that statement. I hope to have many more parliamentary sittings this


Session, many more opportunities. Manifestly when the voluntary agreement fails it will be my opportunity to return and to propose legislation again either here or with my colleagues in another place. My support is a majority support in both Houses of Parliament. I am determined to pursue this and to demonstrate that if it were a free vote the vote would be overwhelmingly for this legislation—

Mr. Lomas: No.

Sir G. Nabarro: —and not for what I regard as a malignant minority which has deliberately deferred our decision in this important area because it is hesitant about proceeding against the tobacco industry—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF DISEASES DUE TO SMOKING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 21st May.

Orders of the Day — ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 21st May.

Orders of the Day — CONTROL OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — HEAD TEACHERS (TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — REPORTING OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — PASSENGER FARES (LONDON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, next.

Orders of the Day — MECHANICS OF PAYMENT OF ALIMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — COUNCIL HOUSE (TENANTS REPRESENTATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — SALE OF GOODS (FRAUDULENT OR MISLEADING GUARANTEES OR WARRANTIES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CAB BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No, instruction.

Orders of the Day — OWNER-OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TENANTS TO PURCHASE) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No, instruction.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (LONDON) AMENDMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [2nd April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — SMALL CLAIMS COURTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No, instruction.

Orders of the Day — WELSH WATER CORPORATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No, instruction.

Orders of the Day — ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No, instruction.

Orders of the Day — RENTCHARGE ABOLITION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 21st May.

Orders of the Day — CLOSING OF PRISONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday. 16th July.

Orders of the Day — TRAVEL AGENTS AND TOUR AND CHARTER OPERATORS REGIS- TRATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE OF COUNCIL HOUSE BUILDING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — SALE OF TICKETS (OFFENCES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — CARE OF THE ELDERLY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — AGE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

Orders of the Day — GRADUATES (EMPLOYMENT)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Even though the hour of the week is very late, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this problem on the Floor of the House. The first task is to determine the order of magnitude of the problem facing students coming up to their finals this next month. It is clear that industrial recruitment is severely down this year on previous years. The estimates of university appointments officers and others vary between the optimists, who suggest a shortfall of some 10 to 15 per cent. on previous years, and some of the more pessimistic, who are thinking in terms of a 25 or 30 per cent. shortfall.
Secondly, the number of graduates this year as compared with last year is up by some 5 to 7 per cent. to a new total of about 60,000. Thirdly, although there has been a selective expansion in graduate recruitment in certain areas—notably banking, some parts of the Civil Service

and so forth—the quantum of graduates being recruited to these jobs even now is so small as not sufficiently to offset the decline in the manufacturing industry sector. Any numerical estimate of the net effect of this at present would be dangerous but, whether it be The Times or the Economist or The Guardian or the Financial Times, there is a consensus that the position facing a large number of graduates—it may well be over 60,000 of them—in this coming June in seeking employment is very grave indeed.
The next question therefore, is why this should be the case. I think we must distinguish here between the short-term reasons, important as they are, and those of a secular, long-term nature. It is obvious that, when national unemployment is running at over 800,000, it would be unreasonable to expect graduates to be immunised from its effects. When business confidence and investment in commerce are so low, it is natural that the investment programmes to be curtailed should include investment in human skilled resources. At worst, it could be argued on a partisan political level that, their fathers having attained wage awards, the abler children shall be without employment, and there is also a regrettable element of truth in the view that, by permitting the present economic situation to occur, the Government bear a heavy responsibility for the specific cyclical element in this problem.
But there is, below and behind that, a much more important long-term problem which has been becoming apparent over the last four, five and more years. This is that the balance between the demand for graduates, particularly in industry, and the production of graduates from our universities has been moving in such a way as to make graduate opportunities harder over the long term. We may well in this country be witnessing the first stages of a perennial condition already only too common in countries such as the United States and Sweden, where the under-employed or unemployed graduate is a common phenomenon. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us that we should examine very carefully why one should produce graduates at great expense to the community if they are not then to be used.
Clearly, one Durham miner unemployed is socially and personally no less


unacceptable than one graduate unemployed, but if one spends up to £10,000 per head producing a high-class chemistry graduate and does not then employ him, it makes one look carefully at the criteria for that investment. When the international market for graduates is such that, particularly if the American upswing in business activity should gather momentum, those graduates will be more than welcome elsewhere, at salaries far greater than they could command in this country, again one wants to question what we are doing investing money on this scale if we do not know what to do with the product when we have it.
There seem to be four possible areas of solution which I ask the Government at least to consider, if not to consider sympathetically. The first, which I should not regard at all sympathetically, is a reduction of the number of graduates being produced. That is the easy solution; it is the facile, the narrow, shallow-minded solution. In this country we have but one great natural resource, our fellow human beings, and if we deny to those with the ability to benefit from higher education the opportunity to have it, we do great long-term disservice to society and the economy. As the negotiations for a further quinquennium for the universities are in progress, that the present surplus of graduates should be used by the Treasury, or anybody else, as a reason for reducing the number of students going to university would be a tragedy, educationally, economically and socially.
The second area, which carries much greater prospects for examination, is that the three principals involved in this situation—the employers, the students, and the universities—should carefully examine what they are doing. There are many employers who do not think of employing graduates but who could well benefit from doing so. There are some employers who employ a few graduates and who perhaps could employ more.
The difficulty of that as a solution is that it simply shifts the problem to those who are slightly less qualified. If posts currently filled by someone with only A-level qualifications are filled in future by graduates, that simply lowers the point at which under-employment or unemployment may occur.
However, the level of graduate employment in local government is deplorably low. I hesitate to suggest that one of the reasons why certain areas of local government have a reputation for less than efficiency is a correlation of cause, but it seems that the amount of money spent nationally on local government and the proportion of graduates therein involved are out of line with much of what goes on in our national life.
Then we come to the students. Until recently, the glamorous professions such as the Foreign Office, were dangled before every student the moment he went to any university.
If one asked, as I have had to ask over the last four years as an admissions tutor at a university, people wanting to read languages what they wanted to do, one found that eight out of ten wanted to go to the Foreign Office, yet one knew that with the best will in the world not one in 80 of them would get near the Foreign Office and that, if they did, the likelihood of their ever using the language they were studying was minimal.
Some students at present have inflated ideas that the world owes them a living on their own terms once they have the letters B.A. or B.Sc. after their names. Regretfully, they will have to learn the hard lesson that the world does not owe them a living on those terms. There are still some students who choose to go to the university as a holiday camp excuse for postponing the time when they have to decide what they are to do. The message that the Government and everyone involved in education must get across to the rising generation of potential university students is that the days are gone when one went to the university and at the end a job automatically appeared out of a hat.
Thirdly, it behoves the universities to change what they are doing. The production or reproduction of the species "don" is a highly desirable activity, scholarship as an activity of the universities is not lightly to be cast aside, but the proportion of students who will now become dons has changed. The universities are facing a new situation in the ratio of dons to those who will earn their living outside academic life. Too many syllabuses, curricula, and so forth


are still geared to the needs that sufficed Balliol to run India for over 80 years with its inferior products while sending its better products to this place.
That no longer suffices for any university or college. Without diminishing the academic and intellectual content of their courses, universities must accept that they have a rôle to provide their students with a bread ticket; that the higher esoteric intellectualism of the ivory tower may be bought at the expense of the unemployment of the products from that ivory tower. I do not accept that there is a built-in conflict of interests here, but there is a need for the universities to change their ways.
I can deal briefly with the last two areas at which I ask the Government to look very closely. We may very well feel, nationally and politically, that it is our duty to use our surplus graduates as a formidable contribution that we can make to overseas aid for the underdeveloped world. If, in this very year, the Ministry for Overseas Development were to make more funds available to permit graduates who are finding a temporary difficulty of employment in this country to give their services in the third world, where their training is most desperately needed, it would be a very considerable contribution to the immediate short-term problem but, in the long term, we must accept that we shall produce graduates for export, and that it is part of society's function to see that those exports are canalised in the right directions.
It may be that a re-examination of the whole structure of higher academic education is called for. That is why I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science present. If we could change the three-year course, with finals, carried out in seclusion and isolation from the real world which of itself makes it more difficult sometimes for the student to understand the world which he is about to enter, into a five-year course with intermittent sandwich courses on a larger scale—and I accept that this is going on in the polytechnics —that might be a solution.
The problem is serious. It is immediate this year and is likely to be with us in

the long term. Unless the Government take cognisance of it in all departments, we shall produce one of the most important revolutionary elements—the highly-trained unemployed intellectual.

4.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Apart from one unfair jibe about the Government's connection with unemployment, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) has made a very thoughtful speech on a very topical subject. He could hardly have chosen a more topical subject, because hardly a day passes without its quota of reports in newspapers and periodicals about employers cutting back their graduate intakes, about university appointments boards' experience of lower levels of recruiting activities by employers or of reports about the difficulties encountered by individual graduates in getting jobs. These have been well publicised. Both editorial and correspondence columns are copiously supplied with writings which display lively controversy about the nature of the problem and the remedies which ought to be applied.
That there is a problem cannot be denied. There is the old saying about smoke and fire and the public interest and concern now being shown would be sufficiently symptomatic of the existence of a real issue, even if we were not already aware of it. It is, however, a far from easy problem to quantify and I shall have something to say about this in a few minutes. But I think that the first thing I want to do is to set it in its true perspective.
The hon. Member in his speech related the prospects for this year's graduates to the general employment situation in this country. He was quite right to do so.
Last week the House debated the general question of unemployment. In a situation in which so many firms feel the necessity to raise prices, cut output and reduce investment, it is inevitable that staff will be laid off and that unemployment will increase. I do not think that we can realistically expect that new graduates will be protected


from these cut-backs. Many firms are having to lay off existing staff, including many in occupations for which university qualifications are normal.
Where firms have a choice between retaining those they already employ and taking on a newly qualified man, it is to be expected that they will reduce, and in some cases even stop, graduate recruitment for the time being.
In winding up last week's debate on unemployment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment gave the Government's views on the priorities which should be followed in tackling the general unemployment problem. I do not intend to repeat the arguments, but I must emphasise that my right hon. Friend declared that it was one of our major national objectives to lower the level of unemployment and to keep it low.
Until we are firmly on the road to achieving that, I think it would be unrealistic to suppose that the employment prospects of graduates or, indeed, of any other particular group, can be brought to a level at which both their individual needs and those of the community for their abilities can be fully satisfied.
In considering the specific problem of graduate employment prospects, we must also bear in mind the very sharp increases in the numbers of those now studying for degrees compared with ten years ago. The hon. Member has referred to the expansion which has taken place in higher education.
In 1961 there were just over 100,000 places in universities in England and Wales. By 1971 that figure had more than doubled. Degrees can also be obtained by routes other than going to university—for example, by full-time and sandwich courses in advanced further education. Places in this sector increased fourfold over the period 1961–71.
This means that, even excluding colleges of education, there are currently about 320,000 places in full-time higher education in England and Wales. As to the immediate problem, it is extremely difficult for me or indeed any Minister to make any very precise estimate of the job prospects for students graduating this year, because of the lack of up-to-date information. As I have said, there has been a considerable amount of Press

speculation on this, and university appointments officers have been widely quoted as taking a somewhat pessimistic view of the situation.
However, the only relatively firm data we have relates to the situation of those graduating in recent years. Figures I am able to give about the current problem suggest to me that the long run employment prospects for new graduates are likely to vary considerably with their choice of subjects and, I would add, probably also with the quality of degrees they obtain.
In 1969 there were 22,250 United Kingdom-based new arts graduates and 20,500 new science graduates. By the end of that year, 4·9 per cent. of the arts graduates and 3·1 per cent. of the science graduates were known to be still seeking employment. Last year there were some 1,500 more arts graduates and 1,000 more science graduates than in the previous year, and at the end of last December, the proportion known to be still seeking work was 6·2 per cent. for arts graduates and 4·5 per cent. for science. The overall percentage was 5·4 per cent. compared with 4·1 per cent. in 1969.
These broad figures for 1970 have only just become available. Detailed figures have not yet been prepared by the University Grants Committee, which collates them from returns made by appointments boards.
If we look at the 1970 figures in more detail and compare them with similar figures for 1966, we find that the overall percentage still seeking employment was two to two and a half times as big in 1970 as in 1966.
For those with arts and social studies qualifications the prospects were worse than those for scientifically qualified people in both 1966 and 1970, but the deterioration in the prospects was greater for scientists than for arts graduates. Those with qualifications in applied sciences have, at all stages, enjoyed better prospects than other groups of graduates.
These are, broadly, all the facts at present that we have to go on. However, I understand that there are certainly more students due to take first degrees this summer who are still unplaced than


has been the case at this stage in recent years. I fully understand this, and I am sure the House does. Inquiries made by the C.B.I. suggest that employers in industry are cutting their graduate intake by 15 to 20 per cent.
However, as the hon. Member has quite rightly pointed out, industry should not be the only major recruiter of graduates. Nor is it, I am glad to say. The situation is significantly better in commerce, banking and the Armed Forces. The hon. Member mentioned local government, and I hope that local government will take the hint.
Even as far as industry is concerned, while recognising that firms are not faced with an easy economic situation, there are still opportunities in the current situation for recruitment. The C.B.I. has recently urged organisations and companies to consider employing graduates in jobs for which they have not previously recruited them. It has also suggested that those who have not so far recruited at graduate level, should take advantage of the opportunity to avail themselves of a share of the graduate output. It recommends employers to think of the medium to long-term in considering their need for graduates.
I know that this does not entirely appeal to the hon. Gentleman, and he appeared to reject this as a solution. However, I welcome the C.B.I. statement and hope that industry will find it possible to take positive action on the cogent recommendations which it contains. It does not go anywhere near solving the whole problem, but it can make a significant contribution, and I hope that it will.
While there will be genuine difficulties, at least until the overall economic situation improves markedly, I hope that action on the lines suggested might begin, before long, to affect the situation so that, later in the year, it may turn out to be rather less bad than some more extreme commentators have suggested.
There will also have to be changes of attitude. On this I can agree with much of what the hon. Member said. The possession of a degree will not of itself open the door to a job and graduates will

certainly have to look into new areas for employment opportunities.
Perhaps I might add here that some might benefit from expert guidance over and above that available in the universities. Here I would draw attention to my own Department's occupational guidance service, which might well be able to give real help to some of those who find themselves in difficulties.
Several sectors of our public life which might step up their graduate recruitment have been mentioned. I would like to comment on one of these. Although the police service has not been a large-scale recruiter of graduates, it has operated a special scheme for taking them since 1968. The scheme has improved the rate of graduate entry, but not to the extent the service would wish. The obstacle to recruitment at the moment is the dearth of suitable applicants, rather than any restriction on the numbers sought.
The hon. Member hinted that universities and polytechnics should do what they can in terms of changing their curricula which should line up with the needs of industry. I am sure he realises that this is not a field in which Government intervention is appropriate nor would it be welcome. The universities and polytechnics do not exist to train people for industry. They do, nevertheless, try to be co-operative, particularly in the area of higher degrees and on short post-experience courses.
Their general policy regarding first degrees has not been to tailor the content to the specific needs of industry. Nor is it clear that graduates' long-term employment prospects would be enhanced if they did.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of overseas aid and the formidable contribution which could be made. I take his point, but in regard to aid programmes, the countries to which graduates would go primarily are seeking those with some experience rather than people who have just graduated. This is a lively question and no doubt we shall return to it as time goes on. It is a human problem and it is a matter of the highest importance to those personally concerned. It is a matter which no Government can afford to ignore and we


must constantly keep our eye on the situation.
There are a number of ways of dealing with the matter, all of which will be kept under review by the Departments concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman of our concern and our interest in this matter. I am grateful that he had

the opportunity of raising this subject today. In doing so he has done a service to those who find themselves affected by the current situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.